'Heavens won't fall if...Vande Mataram sung in madrasas': Calcutta HC
What's the story
The Calcutta High Court has observed that "the heavens will not fall" if all six stanzas of the national song Vande Mataram are sung in madrasas. The observation was made during a hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging a government notification mandating the complete rendition of the national song in these institutions. The bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen, heard the PIL argued by Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya on Tuesday.
Legal proceedings
Court's views on Christian schools
The court compared the issue to practices in educational institutions.
The bench said, "There...[are] thousands of Christian schools where students are asked to pray to the Lord."
"Then, do students belonging to a particular community ask why they are being asked to sing certain things which are in the Christian religion?"
"Heavens will not fall...today if I am asked to utter a quote that is not in my religion...I will become a person not belonging to that religion?" it asked.
Legal debate
No punitive action taken yet
The petitioners' counsel argued that Vande Mataram singing could not be imposed on children learning in madrasas.
"The national anthem stands on a higher pedestal when compared to the national song," it was argued.
The court then asked if any action was taken against those who violated the circular mandating Vande Mataram's singing in madrasas.
The petitioners' counsel responded that no punitive action has been taken yet.
Court
'Has anybody suffered yet?'
"Only if any punitive action is taken, can you contend that it was mandatory. Has anybody suffered yet?" the bench questioned.
"Christian schools pray to God. Take any instituiton, this issue was at a nascent stage when students belonging to a certain community questioned why the school should make them sing Christian songs...heavens will not fall" the bench added.
Adjourned proceedings
Court adjourns matter for hearing
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay pointed out that this issue was debated in Parliament last year but no resolution was passed.
"It was a very contentious issue. Ultimately the Parliament could not take any resolution. I am not going to 1926 or 1936, it was in 2025. When no resolution could be passed...this is how they are trying to enforce it," he said.
The court has adjourned the matter for hearing after the state files its report.