The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday orally observed that 'heavens will not fall' if all six stanzas of Vande Mataram are sung in madrasas while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging a government notification that makes the rendition of the complete national song mandatory in such institutions.
A Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen made the observation during the hearing of the PIL, which was argued by Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya.
'Heavens Will Not Fall': Calcutta HC
Addressing concerns over the religious implications of singing the national song, the Acting Chief Justice remarked, "Heavens will not fall. Today, if I am asked to utter a quote that is not in my religion, what will happen? Will I cease to belong to my religion?"
The court also drew a comparison with educational institutions run by other religious communities. According to a Live Law report, referring to Christian schools, the Bench observed that students from different faiths routinely participate in prayers without raising similar objections. "There have been thousands of Christian schools where all students are asked to pray to the Lord. Do students belonging to another community question why they are being asked to sing certain things associated with the Christian religion?" the court remarked.
Petitioners Oppose Mandatory Rendition
Representing the petitioners, senior counsel argued that although Vande Mataram has been adopted as India's national song, it cannot be made compulsory for students studying in madrasas. The counsel submitted that the National Anthem occupies a higher constitutional status than the National Song and therefore the latter cannot be imposed.
The Bench, however, questioned whether the government had taken any punitive action against institutions that had not complied with the notification. "You have brought this issue before us as an activist. Has any coercive action been taken for strict implementation of this circular?" the court asked.
Responding to the query, the petitioners' counsel said the authorities had not yet attempted to enforce the notification. The Bench then observed that unless any punitive action had been initiated, the petition was based only on apprehension. "Only if any punitive action is taken can you contend that it has become mandatory. Has anybody suffered yet?" the court asked.
Appearing for the State, Additional Solicitor General Dhiraj Kumar Trivedi sought time to file a report and obtain detailed instructions. He argued that an injunction could not be granted merely on the basis of a perceived future threat.
Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay also referred to a parliamentary debate on the issue, stating that Vande Mataram had been discussed in Parliament for nearly 12 hours in July last year, but no resolution was ultimately passed due to differing views. He argued that the present attempt amounted to indirectly enforcing an issue that Parliament itself had not resolved. After hearing all parties, the High Court adjourned the matter and directed the State to file its report before the next hearing.
