Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot has written a strongly worded four-page letter to Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar, objecting to the state government's September 8, 2026 order restricting the rendition of the National Song Vande Mataram to its first two stanzas at official functions. The Governor warned that the move could raise constitutional concerns and places the state at odds with the Union government's nationally prescribed protocol.

What the Governor's Letter Says

In his communication, Gehlot urged the state government to reconsider the order and align with the Union Home Ministry's prevailing instructions on the rendition of the National Song. He argued that restricting Vande Mataram to two stanzas runs contrary to the Government of India's guidelines, which mandate that the official version be recited in full during mass singing at official occasions.

The Governor stated that the Central instructions on the National Song and National Anthem form part of national protocol and have been circulated to all states for compliance. 'Of particular relevance is the instruction that, on occasions when the National Song is sung in mass singing, the official version is to be recited,' Gehlot said in the letter.

The Constitutional Argument

Gehlot grounded his objection in the constitutional distribution of powers between the Union and states, citing Articles 162, 256, and 257(1) of the Constitution. He noted that Article 162 limits state executive power to matters within its legislative competence, while Articles 256 and 257(1) require state executive action to comply with parliamentary laws and not impede Union executive authority.

According to the Governor, because the Union government had already exercised its executive authority by issuing specific orders on the National Song, the Karnataka government's decision to prescribe a divergent version could raise an 'avoidable constitutional question' about the respective spheres of Union and state executive power.

The 2026 Amendment Factor

Gehlot also cited the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026, noting that Parliament had extended statutory protection under Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 to the National Song. He said the amended provision covers the intentional prevention of the singing of the National Song and disturbance of assemblies engaged in such singing.

In his view, this statutory protection makes it constitutionally and administratively inappropriate for the state government to prescribe a truncated rendition without reconciling its decision with the Central framework.

Political and Legal Context

The controversy over the September 8, 2026 government order is already under judicial scrutiny. The Karnataka High Court is hearing a Public Interest Litigation challenging the directive. The Governor's letter adds fresh political pressure on the Shivakumar-led government, which has not yet publicly responded to the communication.

The dispute reflects a broader pattern of friction between the Karnataka government and the Raj Bhavan, as well as ongoing tensions between the Centre and Congress-governed states over protocol and administrative compliance. Gehlot warned that failure to reconsider the order could result in 'unnecessary conflict' between state administrative instructions and Union protocol, and risk 'avoidable constitutional litigation over executive powers.'

What Happens Next

The Governor has formally advised Chief Minister Shivakumar to examine whether the two-stanza restriction can be sustained consistently with the 2026 Amendment, the Ministry of Home Affairs' instructions, and the constitutional division of powers. All eyes are now on whether the state government will revoke, revise, or defend the order — both in court and in response to the Raj Bhavan's intervention.