All India Muslim Personal Law Board has objected to a central government notification directing that all six stanzas of Vande Mataram be recited at official functions and in schools before the National Anthem, Jana Gana Mana, calling the move unconstitutional and an infringement of religious freedom.The board said the order compels citizens, including students, to participate in a form of expression that some consider inconsistent with their faith. It urged the government to withdraw the notification and warned that it would seek judicial intervention if the directive is not rescinded. Both factions of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind have also criticised the decision, describing it as coercive and contrary to established constitutional principles.
At the heart of the dispute lies the interpretation of constitutional guarantees under Articles 19 and 25, which protect freedom of speech and expression and freedom of religion. Leaders of the personal law board argue that while Vande Mataram holds a significant place in the country’s freedom movement, compelling its recitation in full — particularly in institutional settings — violates the right to conscientious objection.
Vande Mataram, composed by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay in the late 19th century, was adopted as the national song in 1950, distinct from the National Anthem written by Rabindranath Tagore. Only the first two stanzas are commonly sung at public events. The remaining verses, which contain references to the nation as a goddess, have historically drawn objections from sections of the Muslim community, who argue that the imagery conflicts with monotheistic beliefs.
The Supreme Court has previously ruled on related issues concerning patriotic observances in educational institutions. In 1986, in the Bijoe Emmanuel case, the court upheld the rights of Jehovah’s Witness students who declined to sing the National Anthem on religious grounds, holding that respectful silence did not amount to disrespect and was protected under the Constitution. Legal experts note that this precedent may shape any challenge mounted against the new directive.
AIMPLB representatives have said the notification marks a departure from past practice, under which participation in singing the national song was not uniformly enforced. They contend that elevating all six stanzas to a mandatory status alters the delicate balance maintained over decades between national symbolism and individual liberties. The board has also emphasised that opposition to compulsion should not be interpreted as a lack of patriotism.
Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, led by Maulana Arshad Madani, stated that love for the country cannot be legislated through force. A separate faction headed by Maulana Mahmood Madani echoed those concerns, arguing that constitutional democracy requires respect for diversity of belief. Both factions have indicated support for a coordinated legal response if the order is implemented without modification.
Government officials have defended the move as an effort to strengthen civic awareness and national unity, asserting that Vande Mataram forms an integral part of the freedom struggle and cultural heritage. Supporters of the notification maintain that reciting the full text reinforces historical continuity and shared values, particularly among younger generations. Some education administrators have said they are awaiting detailed implementation guidelines before altering school assemblies.
The issue touches on a long-running national debate over symbols, identity and secularism. Since independence, successive governments have navigated sensitivities surrounding patriotic rituals in a plural society. While many states have incorporated the national song into official ceremonies, there has been no uniform mandate requiring the full six stanzas in educational institutions across the country.
Constitutional scholars observe that courts often apply a test of proportionality when assessing restrictions on fundamental rights. Any judicial review is likely to examine whether the objective of promoting unity can be achieved through less restrictive means, such as optional participation or limiting recitation to the widely accepted first two stanzas. They also note that jurisprudence distinguishes between respectful non-participation and acts deemed disrespectful.
Political reactions have varied. Some leaders from opposition parties have urged the government to reconsider, arguing that social cohesion is best served by consensus rather than compulsion. Others have endorsed the directive, framing it as a corrective to what they describe as selective observance of national symbols.