Vande Mataram and the Right to Dissent

Source: The Hindu 

Introduction 

The Parliament has extended to Vande Mataram criminal-law protection broadly similar to that enjoyed by the National Anthem. However, neither the Constitution nor the 2026 amendment makes singing Vande Mataram compulsory. 

The constitutional position is also shaped by the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), which recognised that compelling a person to participate in patriotic expression contrary to sincerely held religious beliefs may violate the freedoms of speech, expression and conscience. 

Why Was Vande Mataram Not Made the National Anthem? 

• The issue of India's National Anthem remained unresolved for much of the life of the Constituent Assembly. 
• On 24 January 1950, Dr. Rajendra Prasad declared that Jana Gana Mana would be the National Anthem and that Vande Mataram, which had played a historic role in India's freedom struggle, would be honoured equally with it. 
• Vande Mataram was never formally made either the National Anthem or a co-anthem. 
• The controversy surrounding the song had arisen much earlier. In the 1930s, the Indian National Congress recognised concerns over the later stanzas of Vande Mataram, which contain explicitly devotional references to Hindu goddesses. 
• Objections from the Muslim League and others led the Congress Working Committee in October 1937 to resolve that only the first two stanzas — considered pastoral, secular and free from references to a deity — would be sung at official gatherings. 
• This historical compromise explains why the first two stanzas acquired a distinct official position while the later devotional portions remained outside routine civic and official use. 

What Does the 2026 Amendment Provide? 

• The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 24 July 2026 and subsequently passed by both Houses of Parliament. 
• The amendment substitutes Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, extending its protection to both the National Anthem and the National Song. 
• It penalises a person who intentionally prevents the singing of the National Anthem or National Song or causes disturbance to an assembly engaged in singing them. 
• The punishment may extend to three years' imprisonment, or fine, or both, with a mandatory minimum punishment for repeat offenders. 
• The provision is directed at intentional prevention or disruption of a performance rather than merely at a person's decision not to participate. 

Does the Amendment Make Singing Vande Mataram Compulsory? 

• No. The amended law does not state which stanzas of Vande Mataram must be sung or require all six stanzas to be performed. 
• It also does not compel an individual to sing the song in the first place. 
• The law penalises intentional interference with or disruption of the singing of the song, rather than respectful non-participation. 
• Thus, the amendment cannot by itself be interpreted as creating a general statutory duty upon every citizen to sing Vande Mataram. 

The Later Stanzas of Vande Mataram 

• The commonly sung opening stanzas of Vande Mataram describe the motherland in pastoral terms, referring to its waters, fruits, greenery and fields. 
• Historically, the later stanzas were omitted from official renditions because they contain explicit devotional references to Hindu goddesses such as Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati. 
• In those verses, the motherland is represented through religious imagery and as an object of worship. 
• This distinction is significant because constitutional protection of religious freedom and conscience may become relevant where a person sincerely believes that reciting such verses amounts to an act of worship contrary to their faith. 

Freedom of Conscience 

• India is constitutionally committed to religious pluralism and protects both religious freedom and the freedom of conscience. 
• Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to constitutional limitations. 
• Article 26 separately protects the rights of religious denominations to manage their religious affairs. 
• For individuals whose faith prohibits worship or devotional acts directed towards anyone other than God, compulsory participation in a song perceived as devotional may directly engage constitutional protections. 
• A law penalising a citizen merely for refusing, on sincere grounds of conscience, to participate in a patriotic or religiously coloured expression could therefore raise serious constitutional questions. 

The Bijoe Emmanuel Ruling 

• The Supreme Court addressed a closely related constitutional issue in Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors. v. State of Kerala (1986). 
• The case concerned three schoolchildren — Bijoe, Binu Mol and Bindu Emmanuel — who were practising Jehovah's Witnesses. 
• They respectfully stood during the singing of Jana Gana Mana at their school assembly but did not sing the National Anthem because their religious beliefs prohibited them from participating in what they regarded as an act of worship. 
• The Kerala High Court upheld their expulsion, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision. 
• The Supreme Court held that their respectful silence did not amount to disrespect for the National Anthem. 
• It recognised that compelling them to sing despite their genuinely and conscientiously held religious objection would violate Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, and Article 25(1), which protects freedom of conscience. 

Can Fundamental Duties Override Fundamental Rights? 

• Article 51A imposes a Fundamental Duty upon citizens to respect the National Flag and the National Anthem. 
• However, the Supreme Court in Bijoe Emmanuel made it clear that Fundamental Duties cannot be used to extinguish or override Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. 
• Respect for national symbols does not necessarily require compulsory vocal participation. 
• A person may therefore demonstrate respect by standing silently without being compelled to sing where participation conflicts with a genuinely held matter of conscience. 

Constitutional Tolerance and Patriotic Expression 

• The Supreme Court emphasised India's constitutional tradition of tolerance and observed that genuine conscientious objections deserve protection. 
• Constitutional patriotism cannot be reduced to compulsory participation in a particular form of expression. 
• The principle flowing from Bijoe Emmanuel is that the State may legitimately protect national symbols against deliberate insult or disruption, but compelling individuals to express patriotism in a prescribed manner raises fundamental-rights concerns. 
• This distinction becomes particularly important in relation to the later stanzas of Vande Mataram, given their expressly devotional character. 

Legal Position 

• The constitutional and statutory position can be summarised through three principles: 
• First, the Constituent Assembly and India's founding leadership deliberately recognised only the first two, relatively secular stanzas of Vande Mataram for official purposes, while Jana Gana Mana was adopted as the National Anthem. 
• Second, the 2026 amendment penalises intentional prevention or disruption of the singing of Vande Mataram, but does not impose a statutory obligation upon every citizen to sing it, nor does it prescribe that all six stanzas must be sung. 
• Third, even where Vande Mataram, including its later stanzas, is sung, a citizen who chooses not to participate because doing so would violate a sincerely held freedom of conscience enjoys constitutional protection under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25. 

Conclusion 

• The 2026 amendment strengthens the legal protection available to Vande Mataram by penalising intentional disruption of its performance, but it does not transform patriotic respect into compulsory expression. The distinction between preventing others from singing and personally declining to sing is constitutionally significant. 
• The Supreme Court's decision in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) remains central to this issue. It establishes that respectful silence, even during a national symbol's performance, cannot automatically be treated as disrespect where it is rooted in a genuine freedom-of-conscience claim. 
• Thus, while the State may protect Vande Mataram against intentional insult and disruption, constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, expression and conscience continue to protect individuals against compelled patriotic expression. The constitutional approach ultimately seeks to reconcile respect for national symbols with India's equally fundamental commitment to individual liberty, religious pluralism and tolerance.