Chief Minister Joseph Vijay's maiden meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi on May 27 attracted severe criticism over his request to the Union government to allow the state invocation song, ‘Tamil Thai Vazhthu’, to be sung first at all state government functions. The move is widely seen as a damage-control measure in direct response to the political row and discontent among party members and public. During his oath-taking ceremony on May 10, and later at the cabinet expansion, the state invocation song was relegated to third place, behind 'Vande Mataram' and the national anthem.
Sensing political ramifications and public outcry, PWD Minister Aadhav Arjun tweeted on May 10 that the protocol followed at the oath ceremony was enforced by the Governor's office, based on a memorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). He stated that the government did not agree with the protocol and asserted that the established convention of singing the state invocation song first would be followed in all future events within the state. He also stressed that every state in India should be allowed to follow a similar practice. Conspicuously, this stance was not reflected in Tamil Nadu’s official press release on May 27.
Tamil Thai Vazhthu was written by Manonmaniam Sundaram in 1891 as part of his play ‘Manonmaniam’. The song, ‘Neerarum kadaludutha’, is an invocation to Mother Tamil, signifying the richness of her language, culture, and identity. The Tamil Nadu government issued an order in 1970 directing that the song be sung at the start of functions organised by government departments, local bodies, and educational institutions. This tradition has been scrupulously followed since.
In a criminal case before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, arising from protests over Kanchi Peetam Pontiff Sri Vijayendra Saraswati Swamigal remaining seated during the rendition of the song while the audience stood, Justice GR Swaminathan held that ‘Tamil Thai Vazhthu’ was a prayer song and not an anthem. He observed that standing was not the only legitimate mode of showing reverence. Reacting swiftly to the observation, the government of Tamil Nadu issued a Government Order on December 17, 2021 (G.O. MS No.1037), declaring ‘Tamil Thai Vazhthu’ as the State Song and requiring the audience to stand to pay respect, thereby granting it official state song status.
Conversely, Vande Mataram was composed by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee in 1875 and later included in his Bengali fiction ‘Anandamath’ in 1882, a novel set against the background of the Bengal famine of 1770. It was adopted by the Indian National Congress at its Calcutta session in 1896, and by 1905, it became the political slogan of the freedom movement. Following a decision by the Constituent Assembly, India’s first President, Dr Rajendra Prasad, announced in 1950 that Vande Mataram would be the national song of India. However, no specific protocol was assigned for its singing.
The present predicament in the state stems largely from an MHA memorandum issued on January 28, 2026, communicated to all state governments, Union Territory administrations, and central ministries. The order, titled ‘Orders relating to the National Song of India’, mandates the singing of the official version of the national song on all occasions involving the President, Governor, or Lieutenant Governor at state functions. Crucially, the memorandum states that between the national song and the national anthem, the national song takes precedence and must be played first.
Article 51A(a) requires all citizens to respect only the Constitution, the national flag, and the national anthem. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, does not mention the national song. There is no constitutional or statutory support for it. Consequently, a mere directive issued as an MHA order cannot carry the force of law. Furthermore, it fails to provide an order of precedence when a state song is involved. The executive power of the Union under Article 73 cannot impinge upon a state’s right to its own song, especially given the clear absence of a statutory basis. The residual powers of the Union government cannot violate the core provisions of the Constitution.
Significantly, the Supreme Court on March 25 dismissed a petition challenging the MHA circular that required all stanzas of the national song to be sung at official events. The apex court held that the circular was merely advisory and carried no penalty for non-compliance. Therefore, the Tamil Nadu government does not require consent from the Union government for the rendition of the state song, let alone for determining its order of precedence.
As many as 13 states have officially adopted a state song. For most, it is synonymous with cultural pride and holds a special place in the collective psyche of the people. It is worth recalling the observations in the 1955 Report of the States Reorganisation Commission, which noted that India’s independence was achieved through the national movement only by successfully harnessing regional forces.
The Union Cabinet reportedly cleared a unilateral proposal on May 25, 2026, to amend the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, to include insults or obstruction to the singing of the national song as a punishable offence. Post-independence history shows a periodic tendency to override regional aspirations, frequently ignoring the federal framework provided by the Constitution.
Instead of enforcing conformity, the Union government should attempt to forge a respectful partnership between diverse regional identities and nationalistic sentiments to build goodwill. Ultimately, patriotic fervour is never generated through compulsion, political one-upmanship, or statutory grandstanding.
Raveendhren is Advocate, High Court of Madras