Centre to Delhi HC: Jana Gana Mana and Vande Mataram stand on same level and citizens should show equal respect to both

By Lokmat English Desk | Published: November 5, 2022 05:54 PM2022-11-05T17:54:21+5:302022-11-05T17:55:27+5:30

The Centre has told the Delhi High Court that the national anthem Jana Gana Mana and the national song ...

Centre to Delhi HC: Jana Gana Mana and Vande Mataram stand on same level and citizens should show equal respect to both | Centre to Delhi HC: Jana Gana Mana and Vande Mataram stand on same level and citizens should show equal respect to both

Centre to Delhi HC: Jana Gana Mana and Vande Mataram stand on same level and citizens should show equal respect to both

The Centre has told the Delhi High Court that the national anthem Jana Gana Mana and the national song Vande Mataram stand on the same level and citizens should show equal respect to both.

According to a report of PTI, while unlike the national anthem there are no penal provisions or official instructions about singing or playing Vande Mataram, the song occupies a unique place in the emotions and psyche of Indians and all directions of the high courts and the Supreme Court concerning the song are being followed, it said.

The submission was made by the Ministry of Home Affairs on an affidavit filed in response to a public interest litigation by lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay to ensure that the song Vande Mataram is as honoured and given equal status as the national anthem. 

Emphasising that both the national song and the national anthem have their own sanctity and deserve equal respect, the Centre stated that the subject matter of the present proceedings can never be a subject matter of a writ petition, PTI reported.

The National Anthem and the National Song both have their sanctity and deserve equal respect. However, the subject matter of the present proceedings can never be a subject matter seeking a writ of the Hon’ble High Court more particularly in view of the settled position, the response by Centre said.  The Centre stated that the present case was not adversarial and it would abide by every direction that is deemed necessary and expedient by the court.

Open in app