The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to examine whether Vande Mataram should be recognised as the National Song or whether its official rendition should comprise two or six stanzas, saying the choice of national symbols and the aspirations associated with them fall within the remit of an elected government, even as it agreed to examine whether that recognition can carry criminal consequences for a citizen who, on grounds of conscience or religion, chooses not to sing it.
The observations came on a petition filed by Carnatic vocalist, author and Ramon Magsaysay Award recipient TM Krishna, who has challenged the constitutional validity of the amendment as well as Ministry of Home Affairs directions prescribing the complete six-stanza version of Vande Mataram for specified governmental, ceremonial and cultural occasions. But the bench drew a clear line between the State’s choice of a national symbol and the State’s power to enforce participation in it through criminal law. “It is not the remit of the court to second-guess what are the national sentiments and aspirations associated with Vande Mataram. At the same time, it made clear that such State recognition could not override a genuine conscientious objection. But no conscientious objector can be subjected to penal consequences.”
The bench also indicated that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bijoe Emmanuel Vs State of Kerala (1986) would continue to govern the field.
“Nobody who feels an infraction of Article 25, 26 rights would be subjected to penal consequences,” said the bench, adding that “for a conscientious objector, not to recite one or all the stanzas of the national song is not going to subject himself to criminal prosecution. It is for the State,” said the bench. “To the extent of penal consequences the Act provides, (that) can be gone into,” said the bench, while observing that “in a democracy, State is best placed to give aspiration to the national song.
Muralidhar objected strongly to the expression and sought its withdrawal, saying it was inappropriate for a law officer to use such language during a live hearing.
During the hearing, Muralidhar and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also sparred over the latter’s reference to “Naxalites” while defending Parliament’s legislative authority.
The bench also indicated that it would not enter into a religious adjudication over the lyrics.
“From the very beginning of this hearing, we have said we are examining no religion. We are confining only to the legal issue under the Constitution,” it said.
