Six-Stanza Vande Mataram Challenged In Supreme Court; Ex-IAS Officer Says MHA Orders Turn ‘Secular Republic’ Into ‘Theocracy’

The writ petition under Article 32 has been filed by Balakrishnan Sathyabhama Mavoji, who retired as Secretary to the Government of Kerala and thereafter served two terms as Chairman of the Kerala State Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission with the official status of Chief Secretary. He is presently Chairman of the Anupathika Prathinidhya Prakshobha Samithi, an organisation working for the upliftment of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

The petition impugns the orders dated January 28, 2026 and July 9, 2026, both titled "Orders relating to singing or playing of the National Song and the National Anthem of India" and issued to the Chief Secretaries and Administrators of all States and Union Territories. Its central contention is stated in the Synopsis: "By imposing sectarian prayer to particular Goddesses of one particular religion as the National Song of India, the Impugned Orders convert the character of the polity of India from a 'secular republic' to a 'theocracy'."

The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, is arrayed as Respondent No. 1, and the Union through the Secretary, Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, as Respondent No. 2.

The petition has been drawn by Advocates Dr. G. Mohan Gopal, Mayank Singh Rawat and Zaid Ahmed, with AoR Vaibhav Choudhary.

The petitioner draws a sharp distinction between two compositions. The first is the two-stanza 'Vande Mataram', which, according to the petition, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee wrote in the early 1870s, before Anandamath. The petition describes it as a "non-theistic song" that "lauds the natural beauty of mother earth describing the nation as a landscape and pays tribute to a non-deified motherland."

The second is the six-stanza song as it appears in Anandamath, in which, the petition says, the two original stanzas were incorporated and four new stanzas added. The petitioner's case is that the plot of the novel "totally changes the entire character of the imported two-stanzas of the Pre-Anandamath 'Vande Mataram' from being a paean to mother earth to a prayer to mother Goddess as a theistic nation."

The petition then sets out what it terms the "Tagore compromise". Relying on historian Sabyasachi Bhattacharya's 'Vande Mataram': The Biography of a Song, it quotes Rabindranath Tagore's letter to Jawaharlal Nehru: "I find no difficulty in dissociating [the first two stanzas] from the rest of the poem and from those portions of the book of which it is a part…" The Congress Working Committee, at its meeting in Kolkata in October-November 1937, resolved that "wherever the Bande Mataram is sung at national gatherings only the first two stanzas should be sung".

According to the petition, this two-stanza practice continued unbroken after Independence: "For 79 years from independence until the issuance of the Impugned Orders in 2026, Union and State Governments as well as other institutions and groups had peaceably played and sung a two-stanza song referred to as 'Vande Mataram'."

Under the heading "The 2026 Sleight", the petition alleges that the Ministry, "Under the guise of providing directions on the playing and singing of an 'official version' of the same song 'Vande Mataram'", repealed the two-stanza song and "imposed a new National Song which is the six-stanza civil Religious War Song of Anandamath".

It adds that this "was done without a single word being mentioned in the Impugned Orders about this momentous change." The petition further states that the orders mandate the six-stanza song "to be sung/played even in precedence to the National Anthem on specified occasions".

The petition reproduces Sri Aurobindo's translation of stanzas 3 to 5, including the lines "Thou art Durga…With her hands that strike and her swords of sheen; Thou art Lakshmi lotus-throned, and the Muse a hundred-toned", to support its contention that the later stanzas constitute worship of the Goddesses Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati. It goes further and characterises the six-stanza composition, in the context of the novel, as a "Religious War Song" directed against Muslims, a reading that will be for the Court to examine.

The first limb of the challenge is that the Home Ministry lacked the power to issue the orders at all. The petition submits that the only statement in the orders on the legal status of the song is: "The song 'Vande Mataram' written by Shri Bankim Chandra Chatterjee is known as 'National Song'". This, it says, "is a mere assertion of a claimed fact about the reputation of 'Vande Mataram'. It does not provide or identify any legal basis or source of power on which this assertion is made."

The petitioner relies on the Ministry's own counter affidavit dated November 4, 2022 in W.P. (Civil) No. 8282 of 2022, which stated that "similar penal provisions have not been made by the Government in the case of National Song' 'Vande Mataram' and no instructions have been issued laying down the circumstances in which it may be sung or played."

He then turns to the statement made by Dr. Rajendra Prasad, as President of the Constituent Assembly, on January 24, 1950, that 'Vande Mataram' "shall be honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana and shall have equal status with it". The petition contends that this statement was adopted by acclamation in the exercise of constituent power, and that "An administrative order cannot overturn a decision of the Constituent Assembly exercising Constituent power." It notes that "There is no entry under Lists I and III of the Seventh Schedule that vests in Parliament or the Union Executive the power to legislate on the National Song", and describes the impugned order as one "apparently not approved even by the Cabinet".

In the alternative, the petition pleads custom. It submits that the two-stanza version "has acquired binding legal status as the National Song through continuous and uninterrupted State practice since independence", and that the Ministry therefore "had no power to nullify the use of this 'Vande Mataram' and supplant it with a new 6-stanza song from Anandamath."

The petition also draws attention to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026, dated August 6, 2026, which, it says, for the first time extends statutory protection to the National Song and makes it an offence, "punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both, to intentionally prevent the singing of the 'National Song'; or cause disturbance to any assembly engaged in such singing."

The petitioner's point is that the amendment, enacted after the impugned orders, "does not stipulate that the National Song is 'Vande Mataram'". He argues, accordingly, that "public records do not show that the Respondent No. 1 has ever made a decision that 'Vande Mataram' shall be the National Song of India".

The petition goes on to contend that the orders themselves contravene the Act as amended, because they "prevent the due playing and singing of the 2 stanzas stand-alone 'Vande Mataram' which is accordingly [sic] to law is the national song of India", and that by mandating the six-stanza song before the National Anthem, they prevent the Anthem "from being sung first as is always the practice", contrary to the duty under Article 51-A(a).

On fundamental rights, the petitioner describes himself as "a Hindu belonging to a Scheduled Caste community" who does not practise the Vaishnavite or Saktheya traditions, and as "auto-theistic", that is, one who "retains his spiritual sovereignty to independently constitute his own faith and belief system". He asserts "the fundamental right not to be compelled to accept, profess, observe or pay obeisance to any faith".

Relying on the Shirur Mutt judgment for the proposition that religion "is not necessarily theistic" and extends to "rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship", the petition submits that the playing or singing of the six stanzas "constitutes practice of religion expressing faith in the Goddesses", and that "The right to freely profess religion includes the right not to be forced to practice a religion which is not one's own religion."

It quotes the Supreme Court in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2019): "The Constitution is meant as much for the agnostics as it is for the worshipper."

Invoking Article 28(3), which bars compelling any person in a State-recognised or State-aided educational institution to attend religious worship without consent, the petition argues that the orders compel persons "to offer honor and adoration" to the Goddesses "as part of an assembly of people, i.e., to engage in worship". It adds: "The right to worship emerging from the preambular liberty to worship will be a hollow right unless it includes the right not to be compelled to worship."

The petition leans heavily on Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), in which the Supreme Court held that "There is no provision of law which obliges anyone to sing the National Anthem nor is it disrespectful to the National Anthem if a person who stands up respectfully when the National Anthem is sung does not join the singing."

Drawing on the holding in that case that restrictions under Article 19 must be imposed by "'a law' having statutory force and not a mere executive or departmental instructions", the petition contends that the impugned orders, being "a mere administrative order", cannot form the foundation of any action denying the right under Article 19(1)(a). It submits that the right "includes the right not only to speak but also not to speak", and that "By requiring mass 'singing' of the official version of the National Song in stipulated circumstances, the Impugned Orders violate the fundamental right to freedom of speech of the petitioner."

Under Article 19(1)(b), the petition argues that by adopting a song from which the petitioner is excluded on account of his faith, he "is in effect expelled from full and equal citizenship of the nation". Under Articles 14 and 15, it contends that the orders leave non-adherents with "a Hobson's choice" amounting to "discriminatory exclusion solely on the ground of religion".

Relying on Kesavananda Bharati, S.R. Bommai, M. Ismail Faruqui and Bal Patil, the petition submits that "The imposition of a national song which constitutes worship of Goddesses of a particular religion is tantamount to the enthroning of a state religion in violation of the basic structure feature of secularism". It goes further to contend that "Under the Constitution the State has no power even through a Constitutional amendment or a statute to make a religious song a national song."

The petition also invites the Court to decide whether fraternity, as a preambular ideal, operates as an enforceable limit on State action. Quoting Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's warning that "Without fraternity, equality and liberty will be no deeper than coats of paint", it asks: "does 'fraternity', one of the most foundational of the fundamental ideals that constitute the Republic of India, set any limits on State Executive or Legislative power which weaken fraternity? Or is the word 'fraternity' just a set of ten alphabets inscribed on a piece of parchment which sets absolutely no limits on State action?"

It submits that "The mere act of compelling non-believers to be present and to participate in an act of prayer of only one section of the people (whether they are forced to sing or not) is an act that in and by itself will devastate fraternity."

Reliefs Sought

By way of relief, the petitioner primarily seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders, bearing No. 14/02/2025-Public and dated January 28, 2026 and July 9, 2026, "in its entirety, as being ultra vires, unconstitutional and void".

In the alternative, he seeks a writ of mandamus restraining the Ministry and all persons acting under its authority from compelling, requiring or mandating the playing or singing of the six-stanza song "at any State, ceremonial, governmental or educational occasion", and from treating "any refusal to sing, or any respectful non-participation in, such version as an offence or as disrespect to the National Song".

The petitioner further prays for a direction that "the two-stanza, stand-alone version of 'Vande Mataram' alone be recognized, treated and performed and sung as the National Song". He also seeks a declaration that the singing or playing of the National Song "cannot be made compulsory or mandatory upon any citizen, institution, school or authority", and that no citizen "may be compelled, penalised, prosecuted or subjected to any adverse civil, criminal or administrative action for abstaining from singing or playing the National Song".