The Supreme Court of India has sought a formal response from the Central government on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking equal status, honour, and legal protection for the national song, Vande Mataram, on par with the national anthem, Jana Gana Mana.

A bench comprising senior judges issued notice to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Law and Justice, directing them to file their counter-affidavits clarifying the Union government's official stance on formulating national guidelines and protocols for singing and playing the national song.

The Core Contention of the Petition

The plea argues that Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s Vande Mataram played an indispensable role during India's struggle for independence and was explicitly accorded equal historical standing by Constituent Assembly President Dr. Rajendra Prasad on January 24, 1950.

Key arguments outlined in the legal submission include:

Constitutional Parity: The Constituent Assembly statement made by Dr. Rajendra Prasad noted that Vande Mataram should be honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana* due to its historic contribution to India’s freedom movement. Regulatory Vacuum: Unlike the national anthem, which is governed by the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, and established executive codes, Vande Mataram* currently lacks a formalized code of conduct regarding civic decorum, standing, and playing guidelines. * Directive for Framework: The petitioner urged the apex court to direct the executive to frame comprehensive regulatory rules ensuring that no citizen or institution shows disrespect to the national song.

Judicial Precedent and Previous Submissions

This is not the first time the issue of granting statutory equivalence to Vande Mataram has reached the apex judicial forum. In previous hearings on related matters, the Centre had maintained that while both compositions hold supreme reverence in the national conscience, executive guidelines remain tailored to the statutory mandate governing the national anthem.

Legal observers note that constitutional courts have traditionally exercised caution regarding judicial mandates on national symbols, often reiterating that framing ceremonial protocols falls squarely within the executive domain of policy-making.

The Supreme Court has granted the Union government time to place its detailed submission on record before listing the matter for subsequent legal arguments.