Now Reading: SC says no punishment for refusing to sing Vande Mataram on conscience grounds
-
01
SC says no punishment for refusing to sing Vande Mataram on conscience grounds
SC says no punishment for refusing to sing Vande Mataram on conscience grounds
The Supreme Court on Tuesday told the Centre that a "conscientious objector" should not be punished for refusing to sing Vande Mataram on religious grounds. The bench, headed by Chief Justice Surya…
The Supreme Court on Tuesday told the Centre that a "conscientious objector" should not be punished for refusing to sing Vande Mataram on religious grounds. The bench, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, was hearing Carnatic vocalist TM Krishna's petition challenging the amended Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, which provides for up to three years imprisonment for preventing or disturbing the singing of the national song.
The court said it expects the principle from its 1986 judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala, which protected schoolchildren who declined to sing the national anthem on grounds of conscience, to govern the amended law. The bench added that what constitutes the national song is for the democratic state to decide, not the court. Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that nobody whose conscience or religious freedom is infringed should face penal consequences.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said "law-making cannot be as per the Naxalites idea", sparking a heated exchange with Krishna's counsel S Muralidhar. Muralidhar demanded the remark be withdrawn, calling it unbecoming of a law officer. The court has sought the Centre's response to the petition and asked it to keep the 1986 judgment in mind.
Indian Opinion Analysis
Most sources, including NDTV and The Federal, led with the court's observation on conscientious objectors and the 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel precedent, giving the story a rights-based frame. The Times of India foregrounded the heated exchange over the 'Naxalites' remark, adding drama to the legal proceedings. Siasat.com amplified the same by quoting Asaduddin Owaisi's criticism of the solicitor general. The National Herald also led with the court's protective observation. The coverage splits between the substantive constitutional point and the courtroom spectacle, with the SG's remark dominating the more sensationalist framing. The court's next hearing will test whether the government follows the Bijoe Emmanuel principle.
Coverage: 5 sources, 1 government-critical, 2 neutral, 2 sensationalist
Sources (5): ndtv.com (sensationalist), timesofindia.indiatimes.com (sensationalist), siasat.com (government critical), nationalheraldindia.com (neutral report), thefederal.com (neutral report)
This brief was synthesised by AI from the 5 sources linked above, so one read covers every framing they carry.
Updated: this story now draws on 5 sources.
