Karnataka High Court Petition Challenges State Directive on Vande Mataram

thelawmonitor
3 Min Read
Karnataka High Court Petition Challenges State Directive on Vande Mataram

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been lodged in the Karnataka High Court, contesting the State government’s recent directive that restricts the performance of the national song, Vande Mataram, to its first two stanzas at State functions. The case, Girish Bharadwaj v State of Karnataka, has been initiated by advocate Girish Bharadwaj, with legal representation by advocate Angad Kamath. The court is expected to be approached for an expedited hearing on Wednesday.

On September 8th, the State government issued an order specifying that only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram should be sung during official State events. However, the directive makes exceptions for events attended by dignitaries such as the President, Vice-President, Prime Minister, or Governor, where all six stanzas may be performed.

The PIL argues that this order contradicts the intent of Parliament, which recently passed the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026. This Act formalized Vande Mataram as a national song, granting it a status akin to the national anthem, thus aiming to safeguard the song in its entirety.

According to the PIL, the directive was enacted following an informal cabinet discussion, without any legal counsel or a formal cabinet note from the administrative department. The petitioner asserts that this order infringes upon the citizens’ fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, as enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

Additionally, the petition contends that legislative authority over national symbols, such as the national song, lies solely with Parliament under its residuary powers. These powers are defined under Article 248 and Entry 97 of List I in the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution, enabling Parliament to legislate on matters not enumerated in the State List (List II) or the Concurrent List (List III).

The PIL further claims that the State’s order contravenes Article 256, which requires States to comply with laws enacted by Parliament, and Article 257(1), which mandates that State executive powers do not impede or prejudice the Union’s executive authority.

Share This Article
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *