Supreme Court seeks government response on pleas challenging Vande Mataram as a ‘divisive religious war song’

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union government on October 27, 2026. It seeks the Centre’s response to two petitions challenging six-stanza Vande Mataram. The petitioners call this version divisive and religiously exclusionary. They argue that forced performances could violate religious freedom and deepen communal conflict.

B.D. Borkar and former Kerala IAS officer Balakrishnan Sathyabhama Mavoji filed the petitions. Their lawyer, Mohan Gopal, challenged orders dated January 28 and July 9. The petitions say these orders replaced the commonly used two-stanza version with the longer Anandamath text. They seek cancellation of those orders and protection for schoolchildren.

The immediate next step is the Centre’s reply to the court. On September 2, the court had already made an important observation. It said an elected government cannot force conscientious objectors to perform the song under threat of punishment. The case will clarify whether authorities can impose the six-stanza version nationwide.

Vande Mataram is a patriotic song by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, written in the early 1870s. It became a major freedom-struggle song and is recognized as India’s National Song, though petitioners say it was never formally declared so.

Historically, public performances used its first two stanzas. For 79 years after independence, governments, institutions, and groups played or sang this shorter version. Petitioners call it non-theistic because it celebrates nature and the motherland, unlike later stanzas linked to particular goddesses.

The issue is now before the Supreme Court. Two 2026 petitions challenge orders requiring all six stanzas, calling them divisive and harmful to religious freedom. On October 27, the Court sought the Union government’s response. It had earlier observed that conscientious objectors could not be forced under threat of punishment. The debate balances national memory against freedom of belief.

The Supreme Court challenge concerns a six-stanza version of Vande Mataram. Petitioners say imposing it as the National Song can burden religious freedom and deepen communal divisions.

They contrast it with the two-stanza version generally performed since independence. The petition says governments and public institutions used that version peacefully for 79 years. It says 2026 orders changed the issue by seeking to impose all six stanzas.

The practical difference is four additional stanzas, including material from Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s novel Anandamath. The petitions seek recognition of the standalone two-stanza song and oppose compelling citizens, especially schoolchildren, to perform the longer version. The Court has sought the Union government’s response, so no final ruling has been made.

The petitioners say the six-stanza version is religiously different from the two-stanza version traditionally treated as the National Song. They describe the shorter version as a non-theistic tribute to Mother Earth, while calling the longer version a sectarian prayer to particular goddesses. That distinction matters because compulsion could burden religious freedom.

They argue that the later material, included in Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s novel Anandamath, can suggest religious supremacy. B.D. Borkar says promoting a dominant community’s supremacy could create enmity and conflict between communities. The petitions therefore warn that compulsory singing or playing could deepen communal divisions and move India toward theocracy.

That concern follows two government orders, dated January 28 and July 9, 2026. Petitioners say these orders impose the six-stanza version, including on schoolchildren. They want only the standalone two-stanza version recognised and performed. The Supreme Court has not accepted these claims. On October 27, Chief Justice Surya Kant’s Bench sought the Centre’s response.

If enforced, the six-stanza version could turn a national observance into a legal and religious conflict. Petitioners say compulsion would burden religious freedom and deepen communal divisions, especially among minorities.

For example, B.D. Borkar and former IAS officer Balakrishnan Sathyabhama Mavoji challenged orders dated January 28 and July 9, 2026. They seek to stop compelling citizens, schoolchildren, or public institutions to sing or play all six stanzas. On September 2, a Chief Justice-led Bench said government cannot compel conscientious objectors under threat of penal action.

The Supreme Court has not yet settled whether the orders are valid. On October 27, it sought the Union government’s response. Until a final ruling, requiring the six-stanza version could provoke objections, litigation, and enforcement disputes. The petitions instead ask recognition of the standalone two-stanza version, used peacefully for 79 years after independence.

Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala established that patriotism cannot be forced through a person’s voice. The Court protected respectful refusal when singing conflicted with conscience or religious belief. It balanced national respect with freedom of speech and religion.

Three Jehovah’s Witness children stood respectfully during India’s national anthem but did not sing. Their school expelled them, yet the Supreme Court ordered their readmission. It found no law requiring citizens to sing, and said respectful silence was not disrespectful or disruptive.

That principle matters in the current Vande Mataram dispute. On September 2, 2026, the Supreme Court said authorities could not compel conscientious objectors to sing or play any stanza under threat of punishment. On October 27, it sought the government’s response to challenges against orders requiring the six-stanza version.

Encouraging a national symbol is government expression: people remain free to join, remain silent, or disagree. Legally compelling participation is different because it uses State authority to override individual conscience, potentially burdening fundamental freedoms of religion and expression.

Here, petitioners challenged Union orders dated January 28 and July 9, 2026, which they said imposed all six stanzas of Vande Mataram. On September 2, the Supreme Court orally said an elected government cannot compel conscientious objectors to sing or play any stanza under threat of punishment.

That does not mean the song cannot be honored or publicly promoted. The Court’s observation separates cultural recognition from forced participation, especially for schoolchildren and religious minorities. On October 27, a Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant sought the Centre’s response; it has not finally decided the petitions. Until then, institutions should distinguish invitations from penalties or coercion while respecting individual conscience.