Delhi, Sept 15: A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the High Court challenging a recent government order mandating that only the first two stanzas of the national song ‘Vande Mataram’ be sung at government functions. Events attended by the President, Vice President, Prime Minister, or Governor have been exempted from this directive.
The petition, filed by advocate Girish Bharadwaj, raises the question of whether the state government can determine the form and content of a national symbol like the ‘national song’ through an executive order. Filed through advocate Angad Kamath, the matter is likely to be mentioned in the High Court today and listed for a hearing.
The petition challenges the government order issued on September 8 by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Political). The order directs that a shortened version of ‘Vande Mataram’ be sung at all state government events. This order was issued pursuant to a decision taken during the cabinet meeting held on September 3.
The PIL argues that the state government’s order is directly contrary to the Central Government’s directives regarding the national song. The petition states that the Central Government’s order recognizes the full composition—comprising all six stanzas of ‘Vande Mataram’—as the official version, without limiting it to just the first two stanzas. In this context, the petition cites a letter sent by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to all states on July 9. The letter stipulated that the official version of the National Anthem must be sung during all instances of mass rendition.
The subject of the National Anthem is not included in List II or List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Therefore, the PIL argues that this matter falls within the exclusive legislative competence of Parliament under Entry 97 of List I, read with Article 248 of the Constitution.
Citing Article 162 of the Constitution, the petitioner contends that the executive power of the State is limited to matters over which the State Legislature has the authority to enact laws.
Furthermore, the petition refers to Articles 256 and 257(1), arguing that a State cannot exercise its executive power in a manner that impedes compliance with laws enacted by Parliament or obstructs the exercise of the Centre’s special executive powers.
The petition notes that the legal protection accorded to the National Anthem has been extended to ‘Vande Mataram’ through an amendment to Section 3 of the 1971 Act. It states that intentionally preventing the singing of the National Anthem or disrupting an assembly where it is being sung has been made a punishable offense. The petitioners argued that by extending legal protection to the ‘National Song’ without explicitly defining it, Parliament intended to safeguard the official six-stanza version prescribed by the Central Government.
Previously, in another case concerning the same issue, the High Court had refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging a circular issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs on January 28, as well as the subsequent protocol titled ‘Orders Relating to the National Song of India’. That circular had suggested the singing of all six stanzas of ‘Vande Mataram’ in schools; however, the High Court had noted at the time that the use of the word ‘may’ in the circular implied it was not mandatory.