SC refuses to entertain plea against ‘Vande Mataram’ advisory, says no compulsion or penalty
The Statesman | 26 March 2026
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to entertain a plea challenging the Central government’s guidelines on playing the national song Vande Mataram at government and public functions, observing that the advisory neither imposes any penalty nor makes singing mandatory.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi termed the petition premature, noting that the guidelines were only recommendatory in nature. The Court indicated that it would examine such issues only if there were penal consequences or if compliance was made compulsory.
During the hearing, the Bench repeatedly emphasised that the advisory did not compel individuals or institutions to play or sing the national song. It pointed out that the language of the guidelines itself suggested discretion, with no adverse consequences prescribed for non-compliance.
The Court also observed that, in the absence of any coercive element, the plea was based on apprehensions rather than an actual infringement of rights.
The petitioner, represented by senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, argued that even an advisory could lead to indirect compulsion and place pressure on individuals to conform. Concerns were also raised about the potential impact on personal choice and freedom of conscience.
However, the Bench questioned whether any concrete instance of coercion or penalty had arisen and asked the petitioner to demonstrate any such compulsion.
The Court further observed that unless a person was actually forced to comply or faced consequences for non-compliance, a constitutional challenge would not arise. It indicated that if any such situation were to emerge in the future, the petitioner would be free to approach the Court again.
The Bench also remarked that administrative protocols, by themselves, do not violate constitutional rights unless backed by enforcement measures. It noted that the present challenge was based on apprehensions of discrimination, which did not have a reasonable nexus with the advisory in question.