The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a petition challenging a Union Home Ministry circular regarding the singing of the national song, Vande Mataram, at official events. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi dismissed the plea filed by Muhammed Sayeed Noori, describing the challenge as “premature” and rooted in a “vague apprehension of discrimination.”
The court’s decision hinged on the interpretation of the government directive, with the bench noting that the language of the circular does not make participation mandatory.
Representing the petitioner, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde argued that while there is profound respect for every religion in the country, compelling individuals to sing the song regardless of their faith could be problematic. Hegde contended that such requirements might force some individuals into a “social demonstration of loyalty” against their personal beliefs.
“While there may be no legal sanction, there is always a huge burden for someone who refuses to sing or stand up,” Hegde told the court. He further questioned whether citizens could be “compelled to sing the song in the garb of an advisory.”
The bench was quick to scrutinize the actual impact of the circular. Justice Joymalya Bagchi pointedly asked if the directive specified any penal consequences for those who choose not to sing, or if any individual had actually been removed from a congregation for non-participation.
Hegde clarified that while penalties exist for the “disruption” of the event, there was no explicit legal sanction for merely remaining silent.
Upon reviewing the directive, the bench highlighted the specific phrasing used by the government. “Clause 5 of the Union Government directive says ‘may’. This freedom is as much to sing the national song as not to sing. That is why it does not fall foul of legal rights,” Justice Bagchi observed.
Chief Justice Surya Kant further questioned whether any formal notice had been sent to the petitioner or any other individual compelling them to sing the national song. Finding no evidence of such enforcement, the court maintained that the petitioner’s fears were currently speculative.
The Supreme Court concluded that the petition lacked a concrete cause of action at this stage. However, the bench noted that the petitioner retains the right to approach the court in the future should any actual penal action be taken or if a formal notice of compulsion is issued.
For now, the court reiterated that the “vague apprehension of discrimination” was insufficient grounds for judicial intervention against a non-mandatory advisory.
