Now Reading: Supreme Court to hear Vande Mataram equal status plea on 27 October
-
01
Supreme Court to hear Vande Mataram equal status plea on 27 October
The Story in Brief
The Supreme Court is likely to hear on 27 October a plea by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay to transfer a PIL from the Delhi High Court seeking equal status for ‘Vande Mataram’ and the national anthem, along with formal observance guidelines. The petition, which argues the song is a symbol of national sovereignty and should not be dramatised or misused, also seeks directions for both songs to be played in all schools daily. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana is expected to take it up, according to the court website.
Separately, former IAS officer Balakrishnan Sathyabhama Mavoji has petitioned the Supreme Court challenging the Centre’s January and July 2026 orders prescribing a six-stanza version of ‘Vande Mataram’. He contends the version, drawn from Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s novel Anandamath, is a religious war song that violates secularism and fundamental rights by compelling citizens to revere Hindu deities. He argues that the two-stanza version sung since independence is distinct and should remain the national song, citing Rabindranath Tagore’s 1937 endorsement of only the first two stanzas.
Indian Opinion Analysis
India Today and Hindustan Times report the same straightforward court procedure, a plea to transfer a Vande Mataram PIL to the Supreme Court, listed for 27 October, in near-identical wire copy. LiveLaw, by contrast, covers a separate, directly opposing petition filed by former IAS officer Balakrishnan Sathyabhama Mavoji, who challenges the Centre’s 2026 orders prescribing a six-stanza version sourced from the novel Anandamath, arguing it is a sectarian religious war song. Where the first two outlets present the petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay’s case for equal status and guidelines without critical framing, LiveLaw amplifies the counter-litigation’s constitutional objections and its claim of communal deepening. The two sets of coverage address distinct litigations that the Supreme Court may have to reconcile, and neither outlet notes the other petition exists, leaving the court’s handling of the competing pleas as the concrete open point.
Coverage: 2 sources, 1 government-critical, 1 neutral
Sources (2): PTI (carried by indiatoday.in, hindustantimes.com), livelaw.in (government critical)
This brief was synthesised by AI from the 2 sources linked above, so one read covers every framing they carry. Methodology and corrections.
