Supreme Court Issues Notice to Centre on Mandatory Singing of All Six Vande Mataram Stanzas The Supreme Court has sought a response from the central government within two weeks on a plea challenging the 2026 amendment protecting Vande Mataram and the mandate requiring all six stanzas to be sung at official events. The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a formal response from the central government regarding a petition filed by Carnatic musician T.M. Krishna challenging the constitutional validity of a 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. This legislative modification extended statutory protection to the national song, Vande Mataram. The legal challenge also takes aim at directives issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs that make it compulsory to sing all six stanzas of the song during official government functions. Solicitor General Opposes Notice Citing Sensationalism During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the bench to refrain from issuing a notice, arguing that such a step would needlessly fuel public sensationalism around the subject. Pressing the government's stance on protocol, the Solicitor General contended that determining how many stanzas ought to be sung, whether two stanzas or all six, is a matter solely within the executive's purview. He maintained that no entity other than the government holds the legitimate authority to decide such administrative requirements. Court Observations and Objections Over Language Addressing the foundational status of the song, Justice Bagchi remarked during the hearing that there is no doubt regarding Vande Mataram being the national song. Counsel representing the petitioner countered the government's unilateral mandate by arguing that the wider public should have been consulted before enforcing such rules, prompting Justice Bagchi to observe that this was indeed a valid point. The hearing also witnessed sharp friction when the petitioner's counsel raised serious objections to the Solicitor General employing the word Naxalite during oral arguments. Two Weeks Granted to File Formal Counter Despite the resistance offered by the law officer, the apex court decided to examine the challenge against the mandatory recitation of all six stanzas and formally sought an explanation from the union government. The bench directed the Centre to submit its response within two weeks, setting a strict deadline for the government to articulate its legal justification for both the 2026 statutory amendment and the accompanying administrative directives. What this means for you This judicial review directly influences protocols around the rendition of the national song and statutory requirements during public functions. • Impact on citizens: The examination of the mandate will clarify the constitutional boundaries of compulsory observance rules surrounding national symbols. The final verdict will determine how mandatory civic observances are enforced across public settings. • Official protocol changes: The Centre's response within the two-week window will decide whether the directive enforcing all six stanzas remains active or faces judicial scrutiny. Any court intervention could require official government ceremonies to alter their current singing schedules. • Constitutional rights: This legal challenge addresses the balance between individual creative expression and statutory mandates protecting national honour. The upcoming hearings will examine whether public consultation should have preceded the directive. • Scope of legal penalties: Scrutiny over the 2026 amendment to the 1971 Act will define the precise limits of statutory protections granted to the national song. The subsequent proceedings will shape legislative enforcement around national honours. Why this happened The proceedings were triggered by legal challenges mounted against a statutory amendment and accompanying executive directives issued by the union government. • Direct cause: Carnatic musician T.M. Krishna approached the apex court challenging the constitutional validity of the 2026 amendment to the 1971 Act alongside Home Ministry directives requiring all six stanzas to be sung. The petitioner sought an immediate judicial review of these enforced mandates. • Underlying background: The Ministry of Home Affairs had issued formal instructions making the full rendition of all six stanzas compulsory at official events. The petitioner contended that such significant policy measures were enacted without seeking prior public feedback. • Judicial developments: While the government maintained that executive discretion determines state protocols, the bench acknowledged the validity of arguments favouring public consultation. The court consequently issued a formal notice to the union government with a two-week deadline. Questions & Answers 1. Who filed the petition regarding Vande Mataram in the Supreme Court? The petition was filed by Carnatic musician T.M. Krishna. 2. Which legal amendment has been challenged in the petition? The petition challenges the constitutional validity of the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. 3. What specific directive of the Ministry of Home Affairs is being contested? The challenge disputes the directive making it mandatory to sing all six stanzas of Vande Mataram at government events. 4. What argument did Solicitor General Tushar Mehta make in court? He opposed issuing a notice saying it would create sensationalism, arguing that deciding stanzas is solely the government's prerogative. 5. How much time has the Supreme Court granted the Centre to respond? The top court has directed the central government to file its response within two weeks. https://trendkia.com/en/national/supreme-court-ne-vande-mataram-ke-sabhi-chhaha-pada-anivarya-karane-ke-khilapha-yachika-para-centre-ko-bheja-notisa-36235 TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.