Kolkata, 05 March (H.S.) : The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Thursday sought clarification on the maintainability of a Public Interest Litigation challenging the formal protocol guidelines issued by the Centre regarding the national song ‘Vande Mataram’.

The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sujay Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen, directed the petitioner to place logical and substantive material before the court to establish the maintainability of the PIL.

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Ashok Chakraborty questioned the very basis of the plea, contending that it had been filed purely in the petitioner’s personal interest. He argued that issues concerning sovereignty and national security are intrinsically linked to the national song and raised doubts over whether such matters are amenable to judicial adjudication. He further submitted that the petitioner must first justify the grounds for invoking public interest jurisdiction, failing which exemplary costs should be imposed.

Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate and CPI(M) Rajya Sabha member Bikas Ranjan Bhattacharya contended that the PIL primarily challenges the January 20 directive issued by the Central government to all state secretaries. The directive stated that the complete official version of ‘Vande Mataram’, comprising six stanzas and lasting approximately 3 minutes and 10 seconds, should be presented or played at major state functions.

Bhattacharya argued that in 1937, the country’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, acting on the advice of Rabindranath Tagore, had identified certain portions of the song as universally acceptable. Subsequently, only those selected portions were accorded recognition as the national song. He submitted that the remaining stanzas contained expressions that could potentially affect communal harmony, which was why Tagore had suggested their exclusion. He further maintained that the Constituent Assembly later adopted this position within the framework of the Constitution.

After hearing the submissions, the Division Bench directed the petitioner’s counsel to furnish cogent material in support of the PIL’s maintainability. The court also observed that appropriate documentary evidence must be produced to substantiate the historical claims cited during arguments.

The matter has been posted for further hearing on March 23, by which time the petitioner has been asked to place the relevant materials on record.

Hindusthan Samachar / Satya Prakash Singh