SC on National song ruling: During the ongoing Winter Session of Parliament, a discussion held to commemorate the 150th anniversary of ‘Vande Mataram’ quickly turned into a political slugfest, with sharp disagreements over its interpretation, symbolism and place in public life.
In July 2024, the Bombay High Court quashed an FIR registered against two people for allegedly asking others in one of the WhatsApp groups to say ‘Vande Mataram’.
The accused were charged with deliberately outraging religious feelings. The incident happened during a WhatsApp group chat in 2017. The complaint stated that both accused asked certain questions concerning the Muslim community in the WhatsApp group of 150-200 members, which he found to be outrageous.
Demand for statutory protection to ‘Vande Mataram.’
In 2022, a public interest litigation was filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in the Delhi High Court seeking ‘Vande Mataram’ to be given an equal status as ‘Jana Gana Mana’ — our national anthem — in the spirit of the statement made by Dr Rajendra Prasad, the Constituent assembly chairman, on January 24, 1950.
Responding to the plea, the government submitted that the national anthem and the national song both have “sanctity and deserve equal respect” and asked that Vande Mataram be played in all educational institutions on working days.
Story continues below this ad
The Centre, through the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), has submitted that in 1971, “preventing the singing of the National Anthem or causing disturbances to any assembly engaged in such singing” was made a punishable offence by enacting the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. However, similar penal provisions have not been made by the Government for the national song, and “no instructions have been issued laying down the circumstances in which it may be sung or played”.
PIL for national policy on Vande Mataram
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking a direction to the government to frame a national policy to promote “Vande Mataram”, saying there was no concept of a National Song in the law.
“We do not intend to enter into any debate as far as the National Song is concerned,” a Bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra said.
“Be it clearly noted, Article 51A(a) of the Constitution (fundamental duties) does not refer to ‘National Song’. It only refers to the National Flag and National Anthem,” the bench clarified.
Story continues below this ad
‘Respect national song’
In 2018, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a PIL seeking directions to the Meerut mayor to give “due respect” when ‘Vande Mataram’ was being played or sung in the municipal House.
The PIL had also sought that people of Meerut be sensitised about their fundamental duties to respect the national song and that it should be publicised.
The bench said that it can neither direct elected members and councillors to behave in a certain manner nor can it pass a general direction to sensitise residents about their fundamental duties according to the Constitution.
Play it in schools, varsities: Madras HC
In July 2017, the Madras High Court ordered that the ‘Vande Mataram’ song must be played and sung once a week in all schools, universities, and other educational institutions, and once a month in all other institutions, including workplaces like factories and offices.
The case stems from the plea filed by a teacher aspirant, who moved the court to ascertain the language in which ‘Vande Mataram’ was originally penned by poet Bnakim Chandra Chattopadhyay – Bengali or Sanskrit.
Story continues below this ad
The petitioner said in his answer to a question in the Teacher Eligibility Test in 2013 that the song was written in Bengali, while the Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) denied him one mark, contending that it was written in Sanskrit.
While hearing this plea, Justice M V Muralidharan directed the TRB to award the petitioner one mark and also ordered the playing and singing of the ‘Vande Mataram’.
However, later in the year, a division bench of Justices Huluvadi G Ramesh and RMT Teekaa Raman modified the order and left it to the discretion of the government to make a decision on the issue.