Can the State compel expressions of patriotism without violating freedom of conscience? Discuss with reference to the recent challenge to the six-stanza Vande Mataram.

The State may require citizens to respect national symbols, but it may not compel them to profess a belief. A writ petition in the Supreme Court tests this line. It challenges government orders of 28 January and 9 July that mandate the six-stanza Vande Mataram, which the plea calls a "sectarian prayer to particular goddesses" [1].

Where the State can legitimately act

• Constituent Assembly mandate: On 24 January 1950, the Assembly gave Vande Mataram "equal status" with Jana Gana Mana [2]. Promoting the song is therefore a legitimate state aim.
• Protection against disruption: The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026 penalises preventing the singing of the National Song or disturbing a gathering that is singing it. The penalty is up to three years in jail [3]. This punishes obstruction, not silence.
• Fundamental duties: Article 51A(a) asks citizens to respect the Flag and the Anthem. This shows that fostering patriotism is a constitutional value.

Where compulsion breaks freedom of conscience

• Right to silence: In Bijoe Emmanuel (1986), the Supreme Court held that forcing Jehovah's Witness students to sing the Anthem violated Articles 19(1)(a) and 25(1). It also held that standing respectfully is enough to show respect [4].
• Religious content: The added Anandamath stanzas invoke particular deities. Mandating them brings in Article 25, and in state-funded schools Article 28(1) [1].
• Departure from settled practice: Governments sang the "non-theistic" two-stanza version for about 79 years [1]. The 1950 resolution did not specify how many stanzas [2], so an executive order has now quietly changed the text.
• Social harm: The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste Buddhist, warns of "deepening communal division." The objection therefore comes from outside religious minorities too [1].

Balancing the two

• The State can legitimately honour the song, for example through the 150-year commemoration launched in November 2025 [5].
• Making people sing a devotional text goes beyond respect into compelling belief.

To conclude, the State may honour national symbols and penalise disrespect, but it cannot turn patriotism into required worship. The way forward is to restore the inclusive two-stanza version for official use and to allow respectful silence, as Bijoe Emmanuel permits. This would keep the song's place in the freedom struggle and protect the secular, fraternal republic that the Preamble promises.