New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that a person could not be punished for not singing the national song, Vande Mataram. While hearing a writ
petition filed by Carnatic musician TM Krishna challenging the constitutional validity of the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant referred to the Bijoe Emmanuel case, stating that the observation made in that case still holds good. Notably, under this newly enacted law, singing all six stanzas of the National Song is mandatory and disrespecting it also becomes a punishable offence. A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard the writ petition and said that it would examine if not singing the national song can be a punishable offence. “Declared law in Bijoe Emmanuel case — no one can be punished for not singing the national anthem — still holds good,” it stated. Meanwhile, the top court refused to examine if Vande Mataram should have two stanzas or six stanzas. The top court sought the Centre’s response on the issue within two weeks. Advocate Muralidhar, representing the petitioner, submitted that there has to be some consensus, and it cannot be thrust upon people; there cannot be penal consequences. The top court then observed, “We would expect that the law of the land as declared by this court in Bijoe Emmanuel will govern the law.”
Heated Exchange Between Mehta And Murlidhar:
Meanwhile, a heated argument took place between Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and the petitioner’s lawyer as the former used the term “Naxalite” to support his point.
“Decision-making is done by Parliament and not the way Naxalites want,” Mehta said.
Senior Advocate and former Chief Justice of Orissa High Court S Muralidhar, appearing for Krishna, immediately objected to the reference.
“The expression ‘Naxalites’ is unnecessary. It should be withdrawn. This is unbecoming of the senior-most law officer,” he said. “He should withdraw this. This is going live. Let him repeat. This was unnecessary... calling the petitioner Naxalite. Some decorum is to be observed. We don't expect this from law officers.”
Mehta, however, refused to withdraw the remark.
“I can repeat what I said. One has to go by law. I am not sorry about what I said... what I said is decision-making should be by Parliament and not the way Naxalites want. What I meant is decision-making cannot be by people who do not believe in the Constitution. They must trust institutions created by the Constitution.”
Justice Bagchi then intervened, saying, “Even if you label someone as Naxalite...”
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde added: “To think is not to be a Naxalite!”
Mehta clarified that his reference was to the constitutional process.
Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala, Ruling:
This case dates back to the 1980s, when three schoolchildren belonging to the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith were protected from expulsion after they respectfully stood during the National Anthem but did not sing it. The court indicated that the principle laid down in that judgment — that no one can be punished for not singing the national anthem — would continue to govern the legal position.
