Calcutta High Court: HC What’s wrong with Vande Mataram in madrasas? Heaven will not fall | Kolkata News

The Calcutta high court heard a public interest litigation challenging mandatory Vande Mataram stanzas.

KOLKATA: “The heavens will not fall,” Calcutta HC said Tuesday while hearing a PIL against making six stanzas of Vande Mataram mandatory in madrassas.Acting chief justice (ACJ) Tapabrata Chakraborty further remarked, “There have been thousands of Christian schools where all students are asked to pray to the Lord. Then, do a particular community of students belonging to a particular religion ask why are you asking me to sing certain things which are in Christian religion? Heaven will not fall. Today if I am asked to repeat a quote which is not in my religion, what happens? Do I become a person not belonging to my religion?”The PIL litigant was represented by senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, who submitted that a notification was issued by Centre making all six-stanzas of Vande Mataram mandatory.“How can this be done? When the Constitution was adopted it was decided that two stanzas, after huge deliberation…If somebody wants to sing on their own. I have no difficulty. But it cannot be forced,” he argued.“Communal harmony will be disrupted. Independence was won after much bloodshed. If someone refuses to sing it — despite it being mandatory — and faces imprisonment, how can they seek legal recourse?” Bhattacharyya submitted.Multiple PILs were filed on this. In one of the PILs, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee submitted that there was debate on this in Parliament.While ACJ Chakraborty observed that the bench prima facie found substance in the argument on “jurisdictional” aspect of issuing a memo enforcing the same, he questioned if any coercive step has been taken.“They have not yet implemented that action will be taken if somebody does not sing Vande Mataram. Has anyone suffered as of yet?” the ACJ told Bhattacharyya.Additional solicitor general Dhiraj Kumar Trivedi opposed demand of interim prayer on stay of notification and said, “Unfortunately, PILs are coming which are espousing a cause of publicity interest litigation (sic).”