The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a petition challenging the Union government’s recent advisory over the rendition of the national song Vande Mataram at official and public functions.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi dismissed the petition, calling it premature and devoid of an actionable cause of action.
The Apex Court observed that in the absence of enforceability mechanisms or demonstrable coercion, the petition failed to meet the threshold of judicial review.
It further pointed out the absence of any statutory compulsion or penal consequences arising from the impugned guidelines, characterising them as purely directory in nature.
The Court emphasised that constitutional adjudication was ordinarily triggered upon the infringement or imminent threat to fundamental rights under Part III, and that a speculative apprehension of compulsion, unaccompanied by any overt State action, did not furnish a justiciable controversy.
It further noted that the language employed in the advisory, particularly the use of the term ‘may,’ denoted a discretionary framework, thereby negating any inference of mandatory compliance.
The order was passed on a plea filed by an academic administrator, seeking court intervention on the grounds that even ostensibly advisory protocols could engender indirect coercion, thereby impinging upon the freedom of conscience guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25 of the Constitution.
The petitioner placed reliance on the seminal judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, wherein the Court had recognised the right of individuals to abstain from participating in patriotic expressions on grounds of conscience.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde argued that the absence of explicit penal provisions did not preclude the possibility of informal sanctions or societal pressure, particularly in institutional settings.
He further contended that administrative circulars, even if advisory, may operate as de facto mandates when coupled with implicit expectations of conformity.
The Bench, however, observed that judicial intervention at a pre-enforcement stage would be antithetical to established principles governing ripeness and locus standi.
Any adjudication concerning alleged violations of fundamental rights must be predicated upon concrete instances of discrimination, exclusion, or penal action, it added.
During the course of submissions, reference was also made to the controversial interim directions issued in Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India concerning the mandatory playing of the national anthem in cinema halls.
The petitioner’s counsel invoked the subsequent modification of that ruling to argue against the constitutional permissibility of compelled patriotism.
The Court, however, distinguished the present case on the ground that the impugned guidelines lacked any coercive element or enforceable mandate.
It further observed that the protocols issued by the state, including those governing national symbols such as the Flag Code of India, often operated within a liberalised framework and did not necessarily attract penal consequences unless expressly provided by statute, such as under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.
Opposing the petition, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that the challenge was misconceived and lacked bona fides, asserting that the invocation of constitutional remedies in the absence of demonstrable injury amounted to an abuse of the Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction.
The top court of the country dismissed the petition, while granting liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies in the event of any future coercive implementation or discriminatory application of the advisory.