![\"Courts](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-134423160,imgsize-114818,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/supreme-court-5.jpg\" "\\"SC")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nNEW 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 \u2018Vande Mataram\u2019 should comprise two or six stanzas, saying it was best left to Parliament\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.Seeking the Centre\u2019s reply in two weeks, the bench said, \u201cnobody\u2019s Article 25 rights or the right of a conscientious objector should be violated\u201d.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.<\/p>\n The 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 \u2018Vande Mataram\u2019 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 \u201csecular\u201d Constitution and a heated exchange between solicitor general Tu-shar Mehta and Muralidhar.Muralidhar\u2019s argument that the law-making process, where Parliament made singing of all six stanzas of Vande Mataram mandatory, was not inclusive as it did not fully accommodate public opinion had Mehta angrily retorting that law-making could not be made subservient to the \u201cdiktat of Naxalite ideas\u201d.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, \u201cNothing can be more strong or positive secularism than the US constitution. But the American national anthem uses the word \u2018God\u2019. 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.\u201dMuralidhar said all six stanzas were thrust upon people after 80 years and not singing it invited penal consequences. \u201cThat is what is most worrying,\u201d he said.The SC said, \u201cPenal consequences we will examine. But the state is best suited to declare what the national song is and articulate national aspirations. If these kinds of issues are debated, then this would be the most unfortunate thing for the nation. Courts cannot dictate what the national song should be.\u201dMehta said the petition was meant to create sensationalism and persuaded the court not to issue notice while assuring that Centre would file a response.The bench said, \u201cWe may not issue notice. But the law of the land as declared by SC (in Bijoe Emanuel case) governs the acts of the state. That declaration has not been questioned. There is no dispute as to what the national song is. It is for the democratically elected state to decide what the national song is, four stanzas or two stanzas. But nobody\u2019s Article 25 rights or the right of a conscientious objector should be violated.<\/p>\n Share your thoughts in the comments<\/p>\n<\/div>\nCourts can\u2019t dictate what nat\u2019l song should be: SC<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n