The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday orally observed that "heavens will not fall" if all six stanzas of Vande Mataram are sung in madrasas while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to make the rendition of the complete national song mandatory in such institutions.

The Bench of Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen made the remarks during the hearing of the PIL filed by Sourav Dutta.

Addressing concerns that singing the full national song could affect religious beliefs, the Acting Chief Justice remarked that merely reciting words associated with another faith does not change a person's religion.

"Heavens will not fall. Today, if I am asked to utter a quote that is not in my religion, what will happen? Will I become a person not belonging to that religion?" the Court observed.

The Bench also referred to practices in Christian educational institutions, noting that students from different faiths routinely participate in prayers without raising similar objections.

"There have been thousands of Christian schools where all students are asked to pray to the Lord. Do students belonging to a particular community ask why they are being asked to sing certain things which are in the Christian religion?" the Court remarked.

Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, appearing for the petitioners, argued that although Vande Mataram is India's national song, it cannot be made compulsory for children studying in madrasas. He submitted that the National Anthem enjoys a higher constitutional status than the national song.

The Bench then questioned whether the government had taken any action against institutions that allegedly failed to comply with the circular directing the singing of Vande Mataram in madrasas.

"You have brought it before us as an activist. Has any action been taken for strict implementation of this circular?" the Court asked.

When the petitioners responded that the authorities had not enforced the circular, the Bench observed that the challenge was based only on apprehension.

"Only if any punitive action is taken can you contend that it was mandatory. Has anybody suffered yet?" the Court asked.

Appearing for the State, Additional Solicitor General Dhiraj Kumar Trivedi sought time to file a report through an affidavit and argued that the petitioners could not seek an injunction based solely on anticipated action.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay also addressed the Court, stating that the issue of Vande Mataram had been extensively debated in Parliament in 2025 but no resolution had been passed. He argued that the matter remained contentious and should not be enforced through judicial proceedings.

After hearing the submissions, the High Court adjourned the matter to allow the State to file its report.

Case Title : Sourav Dutta vs Union of India and Another (WPA(P)/86/2026).