The Karnataka High Court has deferred a public interest litigation challenging the state government’s decision to restrict the singing of Vande Mataram to its first two stanzas at government programmes, citing a pending Supreme Court case that could determine the legal framework governing the national song.
A division bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and T P Vivekananda deferred the matter on Tuesday after noting that the Supreme Court is considering a challenge to the constitutional validity of the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act. The High Court said the Supreme Court’s decision would directly affect the PIL before it.
The petition was filed by advocate Girish Bharadwaj against the state government’s September 8 order. Under the order, Vande Mataram is to be limited to its first two stanzas at government events, except programmes attended by the President, Vice-President, Prime Minister or Governor.
The petitioner has alleged that the Karnataka government’s decision violated a directive issued by the Centre. The petition also contends that the state cabinet took the decision without a cabinet note or legal opinion. It further argues that the state government could not reduce the six-stanza national song to two stanzas.
The dispute places a state-level administrative order alongside two broader legal questions: whether the amended national honour law is constitutionally valid and what status Vande Mataram holds at public functions. The Supreme Court proceedings therefore became central to the High Court’s decision to defer the Karnataka case rather than proceed with the PIL independently.
The state government’s position, as presented before the High Court, is that singing Vande Mataram is optional. Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamath, however, argued that the 2026 amendment gave the song a status similar to that of the national anthem.
That difference is significant for the operation of government programmes. The state’s submission treats participation as voluntary, while the argument supporting the amendment concerns the legal status and protection accorded to Vande Mataram. The High Court’s order to wait for the Supreme Court’s determination leaves the immediate challenge to Karnataka’s September 8 directive unresolved.
The case also highlights how decisions governing official ceremonies can become matters of constitutional and administrative scrutiny. The petition questions not only the content of the state order but also the process by which it was taken, including the petitioner’s claim that there was no cabinet note or legal opinion.
For now, the Karnataka High Court has not ruled on whether the state’s restriction to the first two stanzas is valid. The PIL will remain affected by the Supreme Court’s pending consideration of the 2026 amendment, after which the High Court is expected to assess the implications for the Karnataka order.
