Supreme Court rejects plea on Vande Mataram circular, says not mandatory
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea against the MHA circular on singing Vande Mataram, stating it is not mandatory. The court said there are no penal consequences and termed concerns over discrimination as premature
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a plea against a recent home ministry circular on the singing of the national song Vande Mataram at official events and schools, saying the directive was not mandatory.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi noted that there was no penal consequence prescribed for not singing the song and termed the plea “premature”.
“We just feel that you have some vague apprehensions of discrimination which do not have any clear nexus with the impugned circular,” Justice Bagchi told senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for petitioner Muhammed Sayeed Noori.
CJI Kant, agreeing with the views of Justice Bagchi, pointed out that the circular uses the word ‘may’, which indicates that the directive was advisory in nature.
“It is a premature apprehension; if there are any penal consequences, you come to us,” the CJI said, adding, “The word ‘may’ is used in the circular. There are no penal or adverse consequences. Nobody has asked that you do it in your academy or school.”
The CJI further said, “This is only a protocol. The word used is ‘when it is played’. Earlier, we had a national flag protocol which says what are the things to be followed when the national flag is hoisted.”
Hegde, however, submitted that even if there is no penalty prescribed for not following the ‘advisory’, it can lead to compulsion to sing Vande Mataram, and those who do not follow it can be singled out, discriminated against, and threatened to conform.
Noori has challenged the Ministry of Home Affairs circular issued in January on the protocol to be followed for singing the entire stanzas of the Vande Mataram song.
During the hearing, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who was present in the court for a hearing in another matter, said, “Do we need to be advised to respect the national song?”
Hegde objected to the submission of Mehta without filing a formal reply to the petition and highlighted that people from all religions, including atheists, may eventually be compelled to sing the song as a social demonstration of loyalty.
Mehta referred to Article 51A(a) of the Constitution, which establishes the fundamental duty of every citizen to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals, institutions, the national flag and the national anthem.
Hegde said as per Article 51A(a), a citizen only has the fundamental duty to respect the national flag and the national anthem, and there was no reference to Vande Mataram. He also referred to an earlier order of the apex court which observed that patriotism cannot be compelled in respect of the directive to sing the national anthem in a cinema hall.
Justice Bagchi said, “The statement ‘patriotism cannot be compelled’ was only a viewpoint. I am sorry many will disagree with this view of yours.”
“It cannot be compelled even for the national anthem,” the CJI remarked, adding, “We will appreciate this argument if it is made mandatory. That part is completely silent. There are no penal consequences, there is no sanction, there is no requirement that it has to be sung.”
Hegde further contended that the Constitution has to protect individual conscience and that tradition teaches us tolerance.
“If there’s an advisory without sanctions, this court may take it, there’s no way that advisory can be enforced,” he said.
The bench told Hegde that he is at liberty to approach the court if he is discriminated against or any notice threatening penal action is issued on the basis of the MHA’s circular.
CJI Kant said, “It is a premature apprehension. If there are any penal consequences, you come to us. We are giving you this liberty.”
Mehta submitted, “A person who says patriotism is not compulsory should not be entrusted with a writ in the court.”
Hegde objected to Mehta’s remark and said, “The Constitution is for all. It does not depend on where you stand politically or religiously.”
