SC says state can set National Song, but cannot impose conscientious objectors to penal action
The Supreme Court observed that while the government can define the National Song, it cannot force citizens to sing it or impose penal consequences on conscientious objectors. The court is reviewing a challenge to the 2026 amendment of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act.
Why it matters
This case tests the boundaries between state-mandated nationalistic displays and individual religious or conscientious freedoms.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (September 22, 2026) observed that while a democratically-elected government may give shape to the scope and length of the National Song, it cannot violate individual and collective religious freedoms or subject conscientious objectors, who refuse to sing one or all the stanzas of the ‘Vande Mataram’, to penal consequences.
“What is the National Song is not in dispute… It is for the democratically-elected state to decide and give aspiration as to what the National Song is, whether it should be two stanzas or four stanzas. But nobody can infract Article 25 and 26 [religious freedom] or subject a conscientious objector to penal consequences… It is for the conscientious objector to recite one or all stanzas of the National Song without subjecting himself to criminal prosecution,” Justice Joymalya Bagchi, part of a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, observed.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in