Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1642 (KAR)

SRI SOMASHEKHAR RAJAVAMSHI v. UNION OF INDIA

WP/5925/2026 · 2026-04-09

C M Poonacha

Public Interest Litigationbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19626-DB WP No. 5925 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 5925 OF 2026 (GM-RES-PIL) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SOMASHEKHAR RAJAVAMSHI ADVOCATE S/O. LATE SRI BASANNA R AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/A. NO.201, 3RD FLOOR SRI NILAYA, NO.93/5 28TH B CROSS, 14TH MAIN 4TH BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 011 …PETITIONER (BY SRI SOMASHEKHAR RAJAVAMSHI, PETITIONER- PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS ROOM No.35101, 5TH FLOOR KARTAVYA BHAVAN - 3 NEW DELHI - 110 001 2. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF EDUCATION SHASTRI BHAVAN NEW DELHI - 110 001 Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19626-DB WP No. 5925 of 2026 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 4. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 5. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER 18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA SHAHEED JEET SINGH MARG NEW DELHI -110 016 (ALSO THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICER SOUTHERN REGION, NO. 4 PRAKASAM STREET T. NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 017) 6. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MINORITIES THROUGH ITS SECRETARY BLOCK 14, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI - 110 003 7. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS (NCPCR) THROUGH ITS CHAIRPERSON 5TH FLOOR, 1 SIRI FORT INSTITUTIONAL AREA AUGUST KRANTI MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 049 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ARVIND K. KAMATH, ASG A/W SRI CHANDRACHUD A., CGSPC FOR R-1 & 2; SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-3 & 4) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19626-DB WP No. 5925 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH RULES 13 & 14 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) RULES, 2018 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF DECLARATION OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, DECLARING THAT THE PROTOCOL DOCUMENT TITLED ORDERS RELATING TO THE NATIONAL SONG OF INDIA (ANNEXURE-A), TO THE EXTENT IT PRESCRIBES STANZAS 3, 4, 5 AND 6 OF THE POEM 'VANDE MATARAM' AS PART OF THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE NATIONAL SONG OF INDIA, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID AS BEING IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 14, 25, 26, AND 28 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND THE SECULAR BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition as a Public Interest Litigation, inter alia, praying that the protocol document captioned 'Orders Relating to the National Song of India' to the extent that it prescribes stanzas 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the poem Vande Matram, as part of the original version of the National Song, be declared as unconstitutional and void as being voilative of Articles 14, 25, 26 and 28 of the Constitution of India. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19626-DB WP No. 5925 of 2026 2. The petitioner claims that the same offends the secular basic structure of the Constitution. Concededly, the national song is not covered under any statutory framework. 3. The learned Additional Solicitor General also points out that the order mentions the word ‘may’ and the performance of the national song is not mandatory, unlike the national anthem. He also points out that a similar petition preferred before the Supreme Court [WP.(Civil) No.341/2026), was dismissed by an order dated 25.03.2026, inter alia, with an observation that the petition is premature. 4. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE SD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3