The Congress government had recently ordered that only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram be sung at its programmes, except those attended by the president, vice-president, prime minister or governor.
In a letter to the Chief Minister dated September 22, the governor said the September 8, 2026 government order appeared to be contrary to the guidelines issued by the Centre and raised constitutional and statutory questions in the wake of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026.
He referred to the Ministry of Home Affairs’ orders relating to the National Song and National Anthem and said the Centre had prescribed an official version of Vande Mataram for rendition.
The letter said the Central instructions, particularly those relating to mass singing of the National Song, “leave no scope” for a state government to prescribe a different or truncated version at its functions.
Gehlot referred to the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, saying Parliament had extended the statutory protection under Section 3 to the National Song.Read more: Karnataka: BJP MLAs sing full Vande Mataram in Assembly, defy two-stanza order
According to the letter, the amended provision covers the intentional prevention of the singing of the National Song and intentional disturbance of an assembly engaged in such singing.
“Thus, Parliament has now expressly brought the National Song within the statutory framework of national honour. It is therefore desirable that State executive action concerning the rendition of the National Song should be carefully harmonised with the Central statutory and executive framework rather than prescribing a divergent State-specific version,” he said.
Referring to Articles 162, 256 and 257(1) of the Constitution, the governor said the distribution of executive powers between the union and the states warranted consideration before the state government adopted a protocol that he said was inconsistent with the union’s prescribed protocol.
“Accordingly, where the union government has prescribed an official version and protocol for the rendition of the National Song, a state government order prescribing a substantially different version may give rise to an avoidable constitutional question concerning the respective spheres of union and state executive authority,” he said.
Noting that the recent amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 was also significant, the governor said Parliament had consciously extended statutory protection to Vande Mataram as the National Song.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons and parliamentary materials, he said, recorded the intention to provide the National Song with legal protection against intentional obstruction and disturbance during its rendition.
“It may therefore be constitutionally and administratively inappropriate for a state government, after the enactment of the said amendment and the issuance of the central protocol, to independently prescribe a truncated rendition of the National Song for its official functions without first reconciling such decision with the applicable central framework,” he added.
Gehlot advised the state government to examine whether the restriction to two stanzas could be sustained consistently with the 2026 amendment, the Ministry of Home Affairs’ instructions, the relevant constitutional provisions and the distribution of legislative and executive powers between the Centre and the states, as well as the requirement to maintain uniformity and dignity in the observance of nationally prescribed protocols concerning national symbols.
The letter referred to Supreme Court observations concerning national symbols and said their legal position had to be considered in the context of the statutory framework and constitutional freedoms.
“Therefore, in view of the above, I advise the state government to reconsider the Government Order dated 8 September 2026 and follow the central government’s prevailing instructions concerning the rendition of the National Song at State government functions,” Gehlot said.
Such reconsideration would, he said, avoid an unnecessary conflict between the state government’s administrative instructions and the protocol prescribed by the union government and prevent avoidable constitutional litigation over the respective executive powers of the union and the state.
The governor concluded by expressing hope that the issue would be considered in the interest of “constitutional propriety, uniformity in national protocols and due respect to the National Song of India”.
