New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday refused to entertain a writ petition challenging a recent circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) regarding the protocol for singing the national song, ‘Vande Mataram’, at official functions and in schools. The Court observed that the petition was “premature” and based on “vague apprehensions,” noting that the circular does not make the singing of the song mandatory, nor does it prescribe any penal consequences for those who choose not to participate.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing the matter. The petition, filed by Muhammed Sayeed Noori, challenged the MHA circular dated January 28, 2026, and the subsequent protocol mandating the singing of all six stanzas of ‘Vande Mataram’ at government and public events. The petitioner specifically objected to the requirement that all stanzas be presented and that the national song be played before the National Anthem.
At the outset, the bench clarified its stance on the nature of the government directive. Justice Bagchi pointed out that the MHA circular functions as an “advisory” rather than a mandatory order. The Court emphasized that, since no penalty is prescribed for failing to follow the advisory, it cannot be treated as a legally binding compulsion. Justice Bagchi further observed that the guidelines use the word “may,” indicating a non-mandatory nature and allowing individuals the freedom to either sing or not sing the song.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for the petitioner, argued that even in the absence of legal sanctions, such an advisory creates a strong “social compulsion” to conform. He submitted that individuals who do not follow the advisory might be “singled out and discriminated against” or “pressured to conform.” He further contended that, for many, the directive would result in a “social demonstration of loyalty,” potentially compelling people of all faiths, as well as atheists, to participate against their conscience.
Additionally, CJI Surya Kant questioned whether the petitioner had faced any actual repercussions or whether any specific notice had been issued to his institution. He noted that the circular’s language is clearly advisory, stating, “Nobody has asked that you do it in your academy.” He compared the circular to the national flag protocol, explaining that it is merely a set of guidelines for those who choose to display national symbols, ensuring a standardized procedure.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel raised concerns regarding the stature of the National Anthem. Hegde argued that singing all six stanzas of ‘Vande Mataram’ takes approximately three minutes, which he claimed “overwhelms” the 52-second National Anthem. He further submitted that placing the national song before the anthem in the protocol effectively renders the anthem an “epilogue,” thereby diminishing its significance. He added that, historically, only the first two stanzas of ‘Vande Mataram’ were adopted as the national song by the Constituent Assembly in 1950, and that any deviation lacks a proper legal framework.
The bench remained unconvinced by these arguments, reiterating that the absence of a mandatory requirement rendered the challenge unnecessary at this stage. Justice Bagchi observed that the petitioner should approach the Court only if and when actual discrimination arises from the advisory. He characterized the plea as based on a “vague apprehension of discrimination,” lacking a clear nexus with the circular.
The proceedings also saw a sharp exchange involving Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who, while present for another matter, interjected to oppose the plea. He remarked, “Do we need to be advised to respect the national song?” and referred to Article 51A(a) of the Constitution concerning fundamental duties. He further stated that a person who argues that patriotism cannot be compelled should not be entrusted with a writ from the Court. Hegde took strong objection to these remarks, calling them “performative” and asserting that the Constitution applies equally to all citizens, irrespective of their political or religious beliefs.
Outside the courtroom, the MHA’s directive has drawn criticism from various religious and social bodies. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board and Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind have expressed strong opposition, calling the notification “unconstitutional” and a “blatant attack on freedom of religion.” They argued that mandating all six stanzas conflicts with religious beliefs and disregards the historical understanding of limiting it to the first two stanzas.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, observing that it had been filed in a “premature manner.”
The bench concluded that, since the circular is purely advisory and carries no penal or adverse consequences for non-compliance, there was no ground for judicial interference at this stage.
Case Title: Mohamemd Sayeed Noori v. Union of India | WP (C) 341/2026
