Buddhist Activist Moves Supreme Court Against Full Vande Mataram Mandate, Terms It Islamophobic

A newly filed Supreme Court petition challenges two 2026 MHA orders prescribing the six-stanza version of Vande Mataram at specified official occasions.

What Happened

A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging two Ministry of Home Affairs orders dated 28 January 2026 and 9 July 2026 concerning the singing and playing of the six-stanza version of Vande Mataram at specified occasions.

The petition, titled BD Borkar v. Union of India, has been filed by BD Borkar, described in reports as a Nagpur-based Buddhist activist, Ambedkarite scholar and civil rights advocate. The petitioner seeks to have both MHA orders quashed as ultra vires the Constitution and void under Article 13.

The petition has not yet been adjudicated by the Supreme Court. The material supplied for this article records that it was yet to be listed, with no notice or hearing reported. The filing was made through advocate Vaibhav Choudhary, while Professor Mohan Gopal is identified in the supplied material as having drawn the petition.

The challenge centres on what the petition describes as a departure from the longstanding practice of using a standalone two-stanza version of the national song. The petitioner argues that the MHA orders instead prescribe the full six-stanza text and that the Union government lacked the legal authority to make that change through executive directions.

Background & Context

The MHA’s order of 28 January 2026 set out what it described as the “official version” of the national song and prescribed its singing or playing at specified official occasions. Reports of the protocol state that the national song is to precede the national anthem where both are performed, while the prescribed occasions include events involving the President, Governors and the unfurling of the national flag. The later 9 July order expanded the occasions covered by the protocol, including schools, according to reports of the petition.

The petitioner disputes the legal basis for prescribing the six-stanza version. According to the petition, the two-stanza version has been used as the standalone national song since Independence and acquired binding significance through continuous practice.

The petition also presents a particular historical reading of the song and its relationship with Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s Anandamath. It argues that the later stanzas contain religious references that, in the petitioner’s view, transform the character of the text. The petition uses the terms “Islamophobic” and “idolatrous” to characterise that content. Those are the petitioner’s descriptions, not findings by the Supreme Court.

The petitioner further argues that requiring citizens to sing the complete version could affect constitutional guarantees concerning freedom of expression, conscience and religion. The petition invokes Articles 19(1)(a), 21, 23(1), 25(1) and 29(2), among others, and argues that requiring non-Hindu citizens to participate in what it characterises as a religious invocation would have constitutional consequences.

A separate contention concerns executive power. According to the petition, the MHA has no statutory or constitutional source of authority permitting it to alter the version of the national song through executive orders. LiveLaw also reports that the petitioner challenges the authority of the MHA to prescribe the six-stanza version in this manner.

The petition additionally raises concerns about possible penal consequences and refers to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, according to The Leaflet’s report. This contention remains part of the petition and has not been adjudicated in this proceeding.

The petition also invokes Mahatma Jyotirao Phule’s writings and vision concerning coexistence among people of different faiths, placing that material within its broader argument about fraternity and constitutional secularism.

Key Details

• Court/Forum: Supreme Court of India, original writ jurisdiction.
• Case: BD Borkar v. Union of India.
• Orders challenged: Ministry of Home Affairs orders dated 28 January 2026 and 9 July 2026.
• Constitutional provisions invoked: Articles 13, 19(1)(a), 21, 23(1), 25(1) and 29(2).
• Parties: BD Borkar as petitioner and the Union of India, through the Ministry of Home Affairs, as respondent.
• Counsel: Advocate Vaibhav Choudhary; the supplied material identifies Professor Mohan Gopal as having drawn the petition.
• Relief sought: Quashing of both MHA orders as ultra vires the Constitution and void under Article 13.
• Current status: The petition has been filed but, on the supplied reporting, has not yet been taken up for adjudication.

LiveLaw separately reports a Diary No. 61620/2026 for the proceeding and identifies the petitioner by his full name, but the filing materials supplied for this article did not report a regular case number.

Why It Matters

The petition places two broad constitutional questions before the Supreme Court, although neither has yet been decided in this proceeding.

The first concerns the scope of executive authority. The petitioner argues that the MHA cannot alter or prescribe the official version of the national song through executive orders without a legal source of power authorising such a change.

The second concerns the interaction between official protocols and fundamental rights. The petition argues that requiring participation in singing the full text engages Articles dealing with freedom of expression, personal liberty, religious freedom and protection against discrimination.

For law students, the filing is also a useful example of how a constitutional challenge to executive action can be structured. The petitioner seeks to invoke Article 13 against the challenged orders while relying on several fundamental-rights provisions to explain why the directions are alleged to be unconstitutional.

The historical dimension is equally important to the petition’s framing. The petitioner relies on an account of the song’s adoption and the use of its two-stanza version since Independence, including references to a 1937 compromise and the Constituent Assembly in 1950. Those historical propositions form part of the petitioner’s case and should not be treated as findings established by the Court.

The filing also comes against the backdrop of other litigation concerning the 2026 MHA directions. In March 2026, the Supreme Court declined to entertain an earlier challenge to the January order, observing that the circular did not make singing compulsory and that no penal consequence was prescribed for not singing it at that stage.

More recently, in September 2026, the Supreme Court sought the Union government’s response in a separate petition filed by Carnatic vocalist T.M. Krishna concerning the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act and the MHA directions. During that hearing, the Court made observations concerning persons who decline to sing for reasons of conscience. That proceeding is separate from Borkar’s petition and does not determine the present challenge.

The Borkar petition therefore remains at the filing stage. Whether the Court will entertain the challenge, issue notice, examine the constitutional questions or reach any conclusion on the petitioner’s historical and religious arguments remains open.

Closing

The Supreme Court petition in BD Borkar v. Union of India challenges the legal basis and constitutional implications of the MHA’s 2026 directions concerning the six-stanza version of Vande Mataram. The petition’s characterisations of the text and its alleged constitutional consequences remain contentions of the petitioner.

No ruling on those questions has been issued in this proceeding. The immediate legal significance of the filing lies in the questions it asks about executive authority, official national-song protocol and the intersection between such directions and fundamental rights.