Vande Mataram ‘Theocracy’ Plea: Former IAS Officer Seeks Supreme Court Order Quashing Six-Stanza Version
A retired Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer from Kerala has approached the Supreme Court seeking to quash the Centre’s decision to prescribe the complete six-stanza version of Vande Mataram for official and ceremonial occasions. The petitioner, Balakrishnan Sathyabhama Mavoji, has argued that the government’s decision threatens India’s secular constitutional framework and risks transforming the country from a secular republic into what he describes as a “theocracy”.
Mavoji, a former chairman of the Kerala State Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission, has challenged orders issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs on January 28 and July 9, 2026. The orders prescribe the six-stanza version of the national song for specified government functions, official ceremonies and school assemblies. The petition is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court on October 27, 2026.
The plea argues that the government has effectively replaced the two-stanza version traditionally sung since Independence with the complete composition featured in Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay’s novel Anandamath. According to the petitioner, the distinction is significant because the additional stanzas contain explicit references to Hindu goddesses and religious imagery that may conflict with the beliefs of citizens who do not follow those traditions.
The petitioner has contended that Anandamath portrays a religious conflict in which Hindu ascetics wage war against Muslims. He argues that incorporating the entire composition into the official national song protocol risks importing the novel’s religious and historical context into a national symbol intended to represent all Indians.
In the petition, Mavoji has argued that the mandatory adoption of the six-stanza version could deepen communal divisions and undermine the constitutional principles of secularism and fraternity. He maintains that the state should not require citizens to participate in a religiously specific expression of devotion as part of an official national observance.
The plea also invokes the fundamental right to freedom of conscience under Article 21 of the Constitution, alongside other constitutional protections relating to equality, expression and religious freedom. The petitioner argues that citizens should not be compelled to express reverence for religious figures or doctrines that they do not personally accept.
A central part of the challenge concerns the historical decision to use only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram at public functions. In 1937, the Indian National Congress accepted a proposal to restrict the song’s public rendition to its opening two stanzas after seeking the views of Rabindranath Tagore. The petitioner argues that this approach helped preserve the song’s national significance while avoiding religious objections associated with the remaining verses.
Following Independence, the first two stanzas became the version traditionally used as India’s national song. Mavoji contends that the long-standing practice should not have been altered through executive orders without adequate consideration of constitutional principles and the rights of citizens with different religious beliefs.
The legal challenge comes amid a wider dispute over the Centre’s revised national song protocol. Carnatic vocalist and writer T.M. Krishna has separately challenged the requirement to perform all six stanzas, raising concerns about freedom of expression, religious conscience and the legal consequences of refusing to participate. The Supreme Court previously sought the Centre’s response in that case.
During the earlier proceedings, the court indicated that people who conscientiously decline to sing Vande Mataram for religious or other protected reasons should not face criminal punishment merely for their refusal. The observation drew attention to the distinction between respecting national symbols and compelling individuals to participate in expressions that conflict with their conscience.
Mavoji’s petition seeks the quashing of the government orders and a direction restraining the Centre from mandating the six-stanza version at official, ceremonial, governmental and educational events. It also seeks recognition of the two-stanza version as the appropriate national song and protection against penalties for citizens who respectfully decline to sing the complete composition.
The petition does not establish that the government’s orders are unconstitutional; that question remains for judicial determination. The Centre will have an opportunity to defend its decision, while the court will be required to examine the relevant legal provisions, constitutional guarantees and historical context.
The forthcoming hearing is expected to bring renewed attention to the relationship between national symbols, freedom of conscience and India’s constitutional commitment to secularism. The outcome could have implications for how the government prescribes official national observances while accommodating the religious diversity and individual rights of citizens.
