The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals should not face punishment for refusing to sing the national song, Vande Mataram, on grounds of religious beliefs or conscientious objection. The court, in a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, agreed to examine the legality of penal consequences for not singing the song but declined to adjudicate on whether the song should be sung in two or six stanzas. The court emphasized that the issue of what constitutes the national song is best left to Parliament.

The petition, filed by Carnatic vocalist T M Krishna, challenges the legal requirement to sing all six stanzas of Vande Mataram, arguing that the last four stanzas invoke Hindu goddesses, which may offend religious beliefs of some communities. The court referred the matter to the Centre for a response, stating that the 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel vs Kerala judgment remains the law of the land and protects individuals who decline to sing the national anthem on grounds of conscience.

The court clarified that courts cannot dictate what the national song should be, stating that it is for the democratically elected state to decide. Justice Bagchi noted that the law of the land, as declared by the court in the Bijoe Emmanuel case, governs the amended law. The court also emphasized that the rights of conscientious objectors, particularly those who decline to sing on religious grounds, must not be violated.

Senior advocate S Muralidhar, appearing for Krishna, argued that the amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, does not define the expression 'national song,' leaving scope for uncertainty and possible misuse. He contended that the government had altered the earlier understanding of Vande Mataram through executive instructions. The solicitor general, Tushar Mehta, opposed the petitioner's submissions, suggesting that law-making cannot be influenced by 'Naxalite ideas.' Muralidhar objected to this remark, seeking its withdrawal, but Mehta refused, stating that his comments were in line with the constitutional way.

The court did not intervene in the exchange between Muralidhar and Mehta, stating that it would not take note of the comments. The bench also indicated that it is not for the court to determine what constitutes the national song, but to examine whether the rights of a conscientious objector are protected under the law. The petition raises fundamental questions concerning freedom of speech, religious freedom, and secularism, as it challenges the requirement that the complete six-stanza version be treated as the official version of the national song.

The court has not issued notice on the petition, but has asked the Centre to respond within two weeks. The Centre is expected to consider the issue from the perspective of the Bijoe Emmanuel judgment. The court emphasized that the state is best suited to declare what the national song is and articulate national aspirations. The issue of what the national song should be, whether two or six stanzas, remains a matter for Parliament to decide. What remains unknown is the Centre's response to the court's request and the potential impact of the ruling on the legal and cultural status of Vande Mataram.