A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Bijoe Emmanuel case. The bench said the legal principle established in that case, that a person cannot be punished for not singing the national anthem, continues to remain applicable.
The Supreme Court asked the Centre to file its response to the Public Interest Litigation (PIL). However, no notice was issued to the Centre at this stage.
The bench observed that provisions prescribing punishment under the law could be examined in the context of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
The PIL has been filed by Karnataka classical singer T.M. Krishna, who has challenged the law making it mandatory to sing all six stanzas of Vande Mataram.
According to a PTI report, Krishna has argued that the final four stanzas contain explicit devotional references to Hindu deities and that making their singing compulsory violates the secular character of the country.
The petition also challenges the amendment under which Vande Mataram was brought within the scope of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act. The petitioner has alleged that the amendment is arbitrary, violates individual liberty and promotes a majoritarian religious message.
The PIL has also questioned the decision to expand the national song from two stanzas to six and the provision for punishment for refusing to sing it.
Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the challenge. He said that those who do not believe in the Constitution and the rule of law, and whose thinking is Naxalite, should not question the national song while forgetting its role during the freedom struggle.
The Supreme Court’s decision to examine the legal question surrounding punishment for not singing Vande Mataram keeps the focus on the balance between statutory provisions and the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, while the issue of whether the song should be sung in two or all six stanzas remains outside the scope of the court’s consideration at this stage.
About The Author
Comment List