The Supreme Court has issued notice on a transfer petition filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, seeking transfer to the apex court of a PIL pending before the Delhi High Court. The PIL sought a direction that the song “Vande Mataram” be honoured equally with the national anthem “Jana Gana Mana” and be given equal status.

The Supreme Court had earlier asked the Union Government to file its response to a writ petition filed by Carnatic musician T.M. Krishna. The petition challenges the constitutional validity of the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, which criminalises insults to the National Song, “Vande Mataram”.

The Delhi High Court had also sought the Central Government’s response to the PIL.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana issued notice in the petition.


Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay appeared in person.

A transfer petition was filed seeking transfer of a PIL from the Delhi High Court to the Supreme Court, as a similar writ petition is pending before it. 

The plea, filed through Advocate Ashwani Dubey, stated, "‘‘Vande Mataram’ was the whole nation’s thought and motto for independence from British during independence movement. Large rallies, fermenting initially in major cities, work themselves up into a patriotic fervor by shouting the slogan ‘Vande Mataram’. The British, fearful of the potential danger of incited populace, at one point of time banned the utterance of ‘Vande Mataram’ at public places and imprisoned many independence activists for disobeying the proscription. Sh. Rabindranath Tagore sang ‘Vande Mataram’ in 1896 at the Calcutta Congress Session. Sh. Dakhina Charan Sen sang Vande Mataram five years later in 1901 in another Congress Session at Calcutta. Smt. Sarala Devi Chaudurani sang ‘Vande Mataram’ in Benares Congress Session in 1905. Sh. Lala Lajpat Rai started a journal called ‘Vande Mataram’ from Lahore."

The petitioner relied on the statement made by Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Chairman of the Constituent Assembly, on January 24, 1950. According to the petition, Dr. Prasad had stated that “Jana Gana Mana” was the National Anthem of India and that “Vande Mataram”, having played a historic part in the struggle for Indian freedom, would be honoured equally with it and would have equal status.

The petitioner contended that “Vande Mataram” was a symbol of the nation’s history, sovereignty, unity and pride, and that any overt or covert act of disrespect towards it would be anti-social. He further contended that it was the duty of the executive to frame a national policy to promote and propagate the song.

The petition traced the history of the song. It stated that “Vande Mataram” was written by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee and published in the novel Anandamath in 1882, and that it was sung in a political context at the 1896 session of the Indian National Congress. It further stated that the song became the rallying cry of the freedom movement, that the British administration banned its utterance in public places and imprisoned several freedom fighters for violating the ban, and that it appeared on the first version of the national flag created by Bhikaiji Cama in 1907.

The petitioner also referred to a 2006 fatwa by the All India Sunni Ulema Board, stating that Muslims could sing the first two verses of the song, and to the views of a Christian priest from Jharkhand, in support of his submission that the song carried no religious connotation.

"Vandemataram should not be utilized by which the person involved with it directly or indirectly and shall have any commercial benefit. There shall not be dramatization of Vandemataram and it must not be included in any variety show because when Vandemataram is sung/played, it is imperative on the part of every one present to show due respect and honour. To think of a dramatized exhibition of Vandemataram is inconceivable. It shall not be printed on any object and never be displayed in such a manner at such places, which may be disgraceful to its status and tantamount to disrespect", the plea said.

In support of the transfer, the petitioner submitted that when the same or similar facts were placed before different courts, there was a likelihood of divergent views and contradictory appreciation of material. He stated that this could reduce the litigants’ aspiration for finality to “more a mirage than reality.”

"India is Union of States and not association or confederation of States. There is only one nationality i.e. Indian and it is duty of every Indian to respect the Vande Mataram. In order to keep the country united, it is duty of the Government to frame a National Policy to promote-propagate ‘Jana Gana Mana’ and Vande Mataram. There is no reason why it should evoke any other sentiment as the both are decided by Constitution makers", it added.

He argued that the respondents would face difficulty in conducting the same matter in two courts, that parallel proceedings would waste resources, manpower and public money, and that a judgment of the Supreme Court would bind all and save judicial time. He accordingly prayed that WP(C) No. 8282/2022 be transferred from the Delhi High Court and tagged with the other writ petition.

Cause Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India [T.P.(C) No. 3110/2026]

Tags: