Vande Mataram Row: Karnataka Govt’s Decision to Sing Only First Two Stanzas Challenged in HC

A Public Interest Litigation challenging the Karnataka government’s decision to restrict the singing of the National Song Vande Mataram to its first two stanzas at most State government programmes has been filed before the Karnataka High Court.

The PIL, filed by advocate Girish Bharadwaj through advocate Angad Kamath, challenges the State government’s Government Order dated September 8, 2026, as well as the Cabinet decision of September 3 on which the order is based. 

What does the PIL challenge?

The petition challenges the Karnataka government’s direction that at all State government programmes, except those attended by the President, Vice-President, Prime Minister or Governor, only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram should be sung.

According to the petition, the decision was taken by the State Cabinet on September 3 during its 19th meeting under an agenda item described as an “Informal Discussion”. The petition claims that, unlike the other items considered at the meeting, the issue was not placed before the Cabinet through a Cabinet Note and did not have a sponsoring administrative department.

The State government subsequently issued the September 8 Government Order giving effect to the decision.

PIL says State cannot prescribe content of National Song

The principal challenge raised by Bharadwaj is that the State government has no legislative or executive competence to decide what constitutes the National Song.

The petition points out that the Ministry of Home Affairs, through its July 9, 2026 communication to the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories, circulated the Orders relating to the National Song and National Anthem for “strict compliance”.

It says the Union government's Orders prescribe the complete composition of Vande Mataram in six stanzas as the official version and provide that when the National Song is sung in mass singing, “the official version only” should be recited.

The PIL argues that Karnataka cannot, through an executive order, prescribe a truncated version of a national symbol when the Union government has already prescribed its official version.

It relies on Articles 162 and 248 of the Constitution to contend that the State's executive power extends only to matters on which the State Legislature has legislative competence. Since the National Song is not a subject in the State or Concurrent Lists, the petition argues that the matter falls within Parliament's exclusive domain under Entry 97 of the Union List read with Article 248.

Reliance on 2026 amendment law

The PIL also relies on the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026, which received presidential assent on August 6.

According to the petition, the amendment extended statutory protection under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, to the National Song. The amended provision makes it an offence to intentionally prevent the singing of the National Anthem or National Song or cause disturbance to an assembly engaged in such singing.

The petitioner argues that Parliament has thereby recognised the integrity of the National Song as a protected legal interest, and that the State government cannot adopt an executive policy contrary to the Parliamentary framework.

The PIL also invokes Articles 256 and 257(1), contending that the State's executive power must be exercised so as to ensure compliance with Parliamentary laws and not impede the exercise of the Union's executive power.

Challenge to manner in which Cabinet decision was taken

Bharadwaj has also questioned the decision-making process.

The petition states that 36 other items considered by the Cabinet on September 3 were based on Cabinet Notes submitted by the concerned administrative departments, whereas the 37th item concerning Vande Mataram was recorded as an “Informal Discussion”.

It alleges that there was no Cabinet Note, no sponsoring department and no consultation with the Law Department, despite the issue involving questions concerning the constitutional distribution of legislative and executive powers.

The petitioner has therefore alleged that the decision was taken without proper application of mind and that the Government Order is arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

What has the petitioner sought?

The PIL seeks quashing of the September 8 Government Order and the September 3 Cabinet decision.

It also seeks a declaration that prescribing the content of the National Song falls within the exclusive competence of the Union and beyond the executive power of the State government.

As an interim measure, the petitioner has sought a stay on the operation of the impugned Government Order and a direction that, wherever Vande Mataram is sung at a State government programme, the official version prescribed by the Union be sung.

The petition specifically clarifies that it does not seek to compel any individual to sing the National Song. Its contention is limited to the State government not being entitled to prescribe a truncated version when the Song is sung at its own functions.

The petition also notes that the September 8 order would govern forthcoming State programmes, including the Kannada Rajyotsava celebrations on November 1 and Republic Day celebrations on January 26, 2027.

Case Title: Sri Girish Bharadwaj v. State of Karnataka & Others