SC disagreed with the suggestion that the recognition of all six stanzas was not in concord with a ‘secular’ Constitution. NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to examine the legality of penal consequences if a person does not sing the national song due to religious beliefs or conscientious objection, but declined to adjudicate whether ‘Vande Mataram’ should comprise two or six stanzas, saying it was best left to Parliament’s wisdom.

The court was hearing a petition by Carnatic vocalist T M Krishna objecting to recital of the complete version of the national song on the ground that its last four stanzas invoked Hindu goddesses which may offend the religious beliefs of some communities. The amended law stipulates punishment of up to three years in jail for disrupting or preventing rendition of the song.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said the field was occupied by SC’s Aug 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel vs Kerala judgment that no one could be penalised for not singing the national anthem if he showed respect to it by standing in silence. It said the Bijoe Emmanuel case ruling had never been challenged and was still the law of the land.

The Centre must consider the issue raised in the PIL from that perspective, it said. Courts can’t dictate what nat’l song should be: SCThe bench added that if a conscientious objector did not sing one or all stanzas of the national song, he would not be subjected to criminal prosecution.

Appearing for Krishna, senior advocate S Muralidhar argued that ‘Vande Mataram’ must be confined to two stanzas, as done by Congress Working Committee in 1937 due to strong opposition by Muslims, whose faith does not permit idol worship. The hearing was marked by the bench disagreeing with the suggestion that the recognition of all six stanzas as the national song was not in concord with a “secular” Constitution and a heated exchange between solicitor general Tu-shar Mehta and Muralidhar.

Justice Bagchi was sceptical of the argument that singing all six stanzas would undermine the constitutional mandate of secularism, which is a sine qua non for constitutional governance. Justice Bagchi told Muralidhar, “Nothing can be more strong or positive secularism than the US constitution.

But the American national anthem uses the word ‘God’. The national song, not national anthem, paying homage to a particular form of God will not perhaps impact secularism.

But your point is about whether someone who is a conscientious objector can be subjected to penal consequences. We will examine it.”