Overview
- A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant agreed on Tuesday to examine only the penal reach of the 2026 amendment and asked the Centre to file its response within the short time frame set at the hearing.
- The court said the 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel judgment, which protects genuine religious or conscientious refusal to sing the national anthem, should govern how the amended law is applied to objectors.
- Judges declined to settle whether Vande Mataram officially comprises two or six stanzas or to adjudicate the song’s religious content, saying choice of national symbols is for the elected government.
- The petitioner, Carnatic vocalist T M Krishna, argues the amendment is vague because it does not define “National Song” and that un‑gazetted Home Ministry directions forcing all six stanzas could compel devotional language on pain of criminal penalties.
- The courtroom hearing featured a sharp exchange after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta used the term 'Naxalites', and the wider dispute matters because the 2026 amendment extends punishments of up to three years' jail or a fine for disrupting or preventing the singing of the national song, a change that could affect how officials enforce ceremonial protocol.