BJP MP from Thiruvananthapuram, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, criticised some Congress leaders, including the incumbent Health Minister of Keralam, K Muraleedharan, for sitting down during the rendition of the national song ‘Vande Mataram’. The controversy took place during the inauguration of a laboratory building at the Family Health Centre at Mulleria in Karadka panchayat of Kasargod.
The building under the state government's Department of Health Service was constructed using funds from the Kasaragod Development Package. But the inaugural event was organised by the BJP-run Karadka panchayat.
‘Vande Mataram ’ has been in the scene for a while, since the Union Ministry passed the bill of the same name as the song, also known as the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, granting the same statutory protection as the national anthem, ‘Jana Gana Mana’.
As the Act came into force on August 12, 2026, any insult to 'Vande Mataram' will attract punishment of:
i) imprisonment for up to 3 years,
ii) a fine, or both.
However, the Act does not mandate the full 3 minutes and 10 seconds rendition of the song, despite the BJP’s demand for it.
Many objections from the Opposition arose, with Tamil Nadu and Karnataka asserting that only the two stanzas will be used during official ceremonies.
Sonia Gandhi also became part of the criticism when a video of her demanding that the song be cut off after two stanzas during the AICC Independence Day celebrations surfaced.
Look at the arrogance of the Congress/Muslim League government in Keralam. Its Minister has openly violated a law enacted by Parliament, and he is proud of it.Under the law Parliament passed, #VandeMataram has the same protection as our national anthem. Yet in Kasaragod, at a government function, the Minister, MP, MLA and even the District Collector sat down while it was still being sung.This is a violation of a law of Parliament by those whose first duty is to uphold it.Every elected representative swears an oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution. No state “policy” or party politics sits above a law enacted by Parliament.@RahulGandhi speaks of protecting the Constitution in Delhi. In Keralam, his government violates the law made under it.There must be consequences, and there will be.#EnthKitty #APAKADAMPolitics #TruthAboutCorruptCongress #CongressPoliticsOfFraud
According to Chandrasekhar’s claims, Vande Mataram should be treated equally as the national anthem, due to its current statutory protection.
In the video shared by him on X, along with Muraleedharan, Kasaragod MP Rajmohan Unnithan, MLA Kallatra Mahin, and District Collector Sreedhanya Suresh can be seen sitting during the function. Chandrashekar alleges that the function was an official government event and that all the public servants violated the rule by not standing up, for which consequences must be incurred.
While Muraleedharan hit back at the criticism, saying, “Don’t teach me patriotism,” stating that the panchayat tried to infiltrate their agendas into a state programme.
Yes, according to the guidelines released by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the general instructions state that whenever the official version of the national song is sung or played, the audience shall stand to attention, with an exception for instances when the national song is played as part of a newsreel or documentary film, as standing could interrupt the screening.
Therefore, the MHA protocol does prescribe standing during the official six-stanza rendition. However, this instruction needs to be distinguished from the criminal provisions of the 1971 Act.
While the MHA order lays down the expected decorum during the national song, Section 3 of the amended Act identifies the conduct that attracts criminal punishment. The standing instruction does not independently specify imprisonment or a fine for a person who remains seated.
Consequently, a breach of the prescribed protocol should not automatically be treated as a criminal offence under Section 3.
The Supreme Court of India has also been asked to speak on the issue with the petition filed by a Carnatic musician, TM Krishna, challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment and the MHA's directions.
During a September 2026 hearing, the Supreme Court bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana indicated that the protection granted to conscientious objectors in the 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel judgment should also guide the application of the amended law on Vande Mataram.
The Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala judgment is particularly relevant because the Supreme Court had protected three schoolchildren who refused to sing the national anthem on religious grounds but stood respectfully while it was being sung.
The bench observed that individuals who decline to sing the national song on grounds of conscience or religious freedom should not face criminal consequences merely for their refusal.
However, these were oral observations and not a final ruling on the constitutional validity of the amendment. The Court has not specifically ruled that remaining seated during the rendition is an offence or that it is exempt from the law.
Whether any particular conduct amounts to an offence would depend on the circumstances and evidence, rather than the act of sitting alone.
The Kasaragod incident has consequently brought into focus a larger question about the distinction between prescribed respect for national symbols and the limits of criminal liability under the law.