Karnataka Government Defends Two-Stanza Vande Mataram Order in High Court

Karnataka Defends Two-Stanza Vande Mataram Order

The Karnataka government on September 22 defended before the High Court its decision to limit the rendition of Vande Mataram to its first two stanzas at state government programmes.

Appearing before a division bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and T P Vivekananda, Karnataka Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty argued that singing the national song is not mandatory in the same manner as singing the national anthem.

The government's position was presented during a hearing on a Public Interest Litigation challenging its September 8 notification. The High Court did not grant an interim stay and directed that the matter be listed after three weeks, taking note of a similar matter pending before the Supreme Court.

What Does Karnataka's September 8 Order Say?

The Karnataka government issued its order on September 8 following a state Cabinet decision concerning the playing and singing of Vande Mataram at government programmes.

Under the notification, only the first two stanzas are to be sung at programmes organised by the state government.

The order makes an exception for functions attended by the President, Vice-President, Prime Minister or Governor, where the full version can be rendered.

The state government has said the protocol is intended to maintain uniformity, dignity and appropriate procedure at official programmes.

Government Says Vande Mataram Is Not Mandatory

The principal argument advanced by the Karnataka government before the High Court was that there is no legal mandate requiring Vande Mataram to be sung in its entirety.

Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty told the court that the Ministry of Home Affairs' communication on the national song was a guideline and did not itself make the rendition mandatory.

He also argued that historical practice since 1932 has involved singing only the first two stanzas on such occasions.

The government further argued that the Constitution treats the national song differently from the national anthem and that the amended legislation does not define the expression "national song" in the same manner.

These are arguments advanced by the state government and remain subject to judicial consideration.

What Is the Petitioner's Argument?

The PIL was filed by advocate Girish Bharadwaj challenging the Karnataka government's September 8 order.

The petitioner argues that the state government does not have the authority to prescribe which portion of the national song should be sung at official functions.

The petition also refers to a July 9 communication from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs concerning the official version of Vande Mataram. According to the petition, the Centre's instructions require the official version to be used whenever the national song is sung in mass gatherings.

The petitioner has sought to have the Karnataka order quashed. The PIL does not seek to compel individuals to sing the song; rather, it challenges the state's prescription of a shortened version at its functions.

High Court Does Not Stay the Order

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday declined to grant an interim stay against the government's two-stanza order.

The bench instead deferred the matter and directed that it be listed after three weeks.

The court took note of a similar issue pending before the Supreme Court, which was one reason cited for not proceeding with an immediate interim intervention.

The decision means the September 8 government order remains in operation for now, subject to further judicial proceedings.

Supreme Court Case Adds to the Legal Debate

The Karnataka case is taking place against the backdrop of proceedings before the Supreme Court concerning Vande Mataram.

The Supreme Court is examining legal questions arising from the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, which extends statutory protection to Vande Mataram.

The Supreme Court has indicated that its scrutiny will focus on the penal consequences associated with the amendment rather than deciding whether the national song should consist of two or six stanzas.

The existence of the related Supreme Court proceedings has become relevant to the Karnataka High Court's decision to defer the PIL.

Centre's Guidelines Are at the Heart of the Dispute

A major point of disagreement is the status of the Union government's instructions on the official version of Vande Mataram.

The PIL relies on a July 9 Ministry of Home Affairs communication stating that the official version should be recited during mass singing whenever the national song is sung.

The Karnataka government, however, has argued before the High Court that the communication constitutes a guideline rather than a legally binding mandate requiring the state to use the complete version at every official event.

The legal question of how the Union communication interacts with the state's executive powers remains unresolved.

BJP Had Earlier Protested the Two-Stanza Rule

The Karnataka government's decision has already triggered political protests.

During the Karnataka Legislature's special session on September 21, BJP legislators continued singing Vande Mataram after the official rendition ended following two stanzas.

BJP members in both the Assembly and Legislative Council recited the remaining portions of the song and raised slogans against the state government.

The incident brought the dispute directly into the state legislature.

Why Did Karnataka Adopt the Two-Stanza Protocol?

The state government's September 8 order said the decision was intended to ensure uniformity and appropriate protocol at government functions.

The order followed a wider political debate over the rendition of Vande Mataram.

The Congress Working Committee had also decided in August 2026 that the party would follow its 1937 resolution and use the first two stanzas at its programmes. The party has cited historical discussions involving leaders of the freedom movement in support of that position.

The Karnataka government's order, however, specifically applies to programmes organised by the state government.

Vande Mataram and the National Anthem Are Legally Different Issues

The government's High Court argument also highlighted the distinction between Vande Mataram and Jana Gana Mana, India's national anthem.

The Advocate General argued that the Constitution does not refer to Vande Mataram in exactly the same manner as it refers to the national anthem.

The state therefore contends that the legal requirements governing the two national symbols should not automatically be treated as identical.

The petitioner, on the other hand, relies on the recent statutory protection and Union government directions concerning Vande Mataram.

The courts will ultimately have to consider the competing legal arguments.

2026 Amendment Has Added a New Legal Dimension

The dispute has also emerged after Parliament amended the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act in 2026.

The amendment extends penal protection to Vande Mataram and addresses attempts to stop or prevent its singing or playing.

The petitioner in the Karnataka case argues that the amendment strengthens the legal significance of the national song, while the state has questioned whether that legislation prescribes a particular number of stanzas for official events.

The interpretation of the amended law is therefore likely to be important to the continuing litigation.

Political Dispute Has Spread Beyond Karnataka

The question of how much of Vande Mataram should be sung has become a political issue in several parts of the country.

The BJP has criticised the Karnataka government's two-stanza policy, while the Congress has defended the historical practice of using the first two stanzas at its own party programmes.

The Karnataka government has maintained that its September 8 notification concerns official state functions and establishes a protocol for those occasions.

The legal proceedings are separate from the political disagreement and will focus on the government's authority and the applicable legal framework.

Key Points at a Glance

IssueCurrent PositionKarnataka orderIssued September 8, 2026State government ruleFirst two stanzas at state government programmesExceptionsPresident, Vice-President, Prime Minister or Governor presentGovernment's High Court argumentSinging Vande Mataram is not mandatory like the national anthemPIL petitionerAdvocate Girish BharadwajMain challengeState's authority to prescribe the renditionHigh Court decisionNo interim stayNext listingAfter three weeksRelated proceedingSimilar matter pending before Supreme CourtAssembly controversyBJP legislators recited the full version on September 21

What Happens Next?

The Karnataka High Court has deferred the PIL for three weeks.

The September 8 government order therefore remains operative for the time being. The court will later consider the petitioner's challenge and the state's defence in greater detail.

The Supreme Court proceedings concerning Vande Mataram and the 2026 amendment to the national-honour law could also have a bearing on the broader legal debate.

Until the courts issue further directions, the competing positions of the Karnataka government and the PIL petitioner remain part of an unresolved legal dispute.

Bottom Line

The Karnataka government has defended its decision to restrict Vande Mataram to its first two stanzas at state government functions, arguing before the High Court that singing the national song is not mandatory in the same way as the national anthem.

The state has also argued that the Union Ministry of Home Affairs' directions are guidelines and that historical practice supports the use of the first two stanzas. The PIL petitioner contends that Karnataka cannot prescribe a shortened version when the Centre has issued directions concerning the official rendition.

The High Court has not stayed the Karnataka order and has deferred the PIL for three weeks because a related matter is pending before the Supreme Court.

The next stage of the case will determine how the competing arguments over the state's authority, Union guidelines and the legal status of Vande Mataram are addressed.