SIX STANZAS, ONE REPUBLIC: SUPREME COURT CONFRONTS THE CONSTITUTIONAL BATTLE OVER VANDE MATARAM

October 28, 2026

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 28, 2026 — India’s national debate over patriotism, religious freedom and the secular character of the republic has returned to the Supreme Court, where a fresh challenge to the mandatory rendition of all six stanzas of Vande Mataram has placed the government’s national-song policy under renewed constitutional scrutiny.

On Tuesday, October 27, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notices to the Union government on two petitions seeking the quashing of the Centre’s decision to require the full version of the song at designated official and public events. The petitioners have argued that the directive threatens the constitutional principles of secularism and fraternity and risks deepening divisions between religious communities.

The petitions were filed by Balakrishnan Sathyabhama Mavoji, a retired Dalit IAS officer from Kerala, and B. D. Borkar, an Ambedkarite and Buddhist follower. Both have challenged the policy on the grounds that the remaining four stanzas of the song, beyond the first two traditionally used in public ceremonies, contain religious imagery and themes that raise questions about the state’s obligation to remain neutral in matters of faith.

At the heart of the legal dispute lies the relationship between Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay’s celebrated composition and his nineteenth-century novel Anandamath, in which the song appears. The petitioners contend that the novel depicts Hindu ascetics waging a religious conflict against Muslims and that the wider narrative gives the full composition a theological dimension incompatible with its compulsory use as a national expression in a religiously diverse republic.

Mavoji’s petition argues that requiring citizens to sing all six stanzas effectively elevates a particular religious conception of the nation above others. According to the plea, such a policy could undermine the constitutional guarantees of secularism, equality and fraternity by making participation in a religiously inflected expression of patriotism a test of national loyalty.

The petitioners have further warned that the policy could intensify communal tensions rather than foster unity. They maintain that patriotism in a constitutional democracy must accommodate citizens of different religious traditions and those who object to particular forms of religious expression on grounds of conscience.

The dispute has emerged against the backdrop of a broader government initiative to accord the complete version of Vande Mataram greater official recognition. The Union government’s 2026 directions provide for the rendition of all six stanzas at specified occasions, including certain government functions and ceremonial events, and prescribe that the song precede the national anthem when both are played or sung.

The move represents a significant departure from the long-established public practice of using the first two stanzas. In 1937, the Indian National Congress adopted a decision to use those opening stanzas at public gatherings following discussions about the religious imagery in the remainder of the composition. Independent India subsequently recognised Vande Mataram as the national song, with the first two stanzas forming the customary version used in public ceremonies.

Supporters of the full version argue that the song occupies a distinguished place in the history of India’s freedom struggle and deserves recognition in its entirety. They regard attempts to limit its rendition as an unnecessary restriction on a historic national symbol. The government’s position has also formed part of a wider campaign to commemorate the composition’s historical significance and strengthen its official standing.

Opponents, however, distinguish between respecting the song and compelling every citizen to sing all its verses. Their central argument is that national symbols can command respect without requiring uniform religious or ideological expression. They maintain that a person’s patriotism should not be judged by whether that individual can participate in every stanza of a composition containing religious references.

The present litigation is not the first time the Supreme Court has been asked to consider the legal implications of the government’s policy. In September, the court sought the Centre’s response to a petition filed by Carnatic vocalist T. M. Krishna, who challenged the legal amendment and administrative directions concerning the full version of the song. During that hearing, the bench referred to the principles established in the landmark 1986 judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, which protected the freedom of schoolchildren who declined to sing the national anthem because of their sincerely held religious beliefs, despite standing respectfully while it was played.

The earlier proceedings raised a fundamental question: whether the state can impose criminal consequences on a person who refuses to sing a national song because of conscience or religious conviction. The court indicated that the constitutional protection afforded to conscientious objectors would remain relevant when examining the new legal framework.

The latest petitions broaden the controversy by challenging not merely the possibility of punishment for refusal, but the constitutionality of the policy requiring the full version in the first place. The petitioners have asked the court to examine whether the government’s decision is consistent with the basic constitutional character of India as a secular democratic republic.

The case therefore brings two important principles into direct conversation. The first is the legitimate public interest in recognising a composition deeply associated with the independence movement. The second is the constitutional responsibility to protect freedom of conscience and ensure that state institutions do not privilege one religious tradition over others.

The Supreme Court’s issuance of notices does not amount to a final determination on the merits of the petitions. The Centre will have an opportunity to respond to the allegations, and the constitutional questions remain to be resolved through the judicial process.

Ultimately, the dispute extends beyond the number of stanzas that should be sung at a public function. It concerns the meaning of national unity in a society whose citizens differ in religion, language, belief and cultural practice. For one side, the complete song represents historical continuity and national pride; for the other, compulsory rendition raises the danger of conflating patriotism with adherence to a particular religious expression.

The constitutional challenge confronting the court is whether the state can honour a historic national composition while preserving the freedom of citizens who may respect the country but object to singing particular verses. Its eventual consideration will have implications for the boundaries between national symbolism, executive authority and individual liberty.

India’s constitutional tradition rests on the proposition that national belonging is not confined to a single faith or form of worship. The forthcoming legal debate will test how that principle should operate when a symbol of the freedom struggle becomes the subject of a government mandate. The central question is whether national unity is best sustained through compulsory uniformity or through respect for both shared history and freedom of conscience.