The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that challenged a Central government advisory encouraging schools to recite all six stanzas of "Vande Mataram." The petitioner, advocate Somashekhar Rajavamshi, raised concerns that including the latter stanzas—which contain references to Hindu deities—could amount to religious instruction in state-funded institutions, potentially violating the secular fabric of the Constitution and Article 28. However, the court's decision was anchored in the voluntary nature of the advisory, which uses the word "may," indicating that the recitation is an option rather than a mandatory requirement for schools.
​A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha observed that the national song does not hold a statutory mandate similar to the National Anthem. Since the advisory lacked any penal consequences or compulsory language, the court found no grounds for legal intervention. This ruling aligns with a previous dismissal by the Supreme Court on similar grounds, where a petition was deemed premature because no individual had been penalized or forced into compliance. The court emphasized that in the absence of a legal mandate, the advisory serves as a protocol for cultural expression rather than an enforceable law.
​The debate surrounding the full version of "Vande Mataram" stems from its historical evolution; while the first two stanzas were historically adopted as the National Song due to their universal patriotic appeal, the remaining stanzas have often been the subject of theological and political discussion. The Union Home Ministry’s protocol aims to restore the song's original 1875 length for official functions and school routines, marking its 150th anniversary. Critics argue that even "advisories" can create social pressure or informal compulsion, but the judiciary has maintained that as long as the state does not impose sanctions, such directives do not infringe upon constitutional rights.
​Ultimately, this dismissal reinforces the legal distinction between the National Anthem, which is governed by specific statutory protocols, and the National Song, which is recognized as a significant patriotic symbol but lacks a formal legislative framework for mandatory performance. By dismissing the PIL, the Karnataka High Court has upheld the government's right to issue cultural guidelines while simultaneously protecting individual conscience by clarifying that such protocols remain optional. This decision highlights the court's cautious approach to intervening in matters of executive policy unless a clear violation of fundamental rights or a statutory breach is established.