New Delhi, March 26 -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a petition challenging the Centre's instructions on the playing and singing of the national song Vande Mataram, observing that the January 28 circular was purely "advisory in nature" and imposed "no legal obligation" or penal consequences for non-compliance. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi termed the plea "premature" and founded on "vague apprehension of discrimination", noting that there was no material to show any coercive action or discrimination flowing from the Union home ministry's notification. "What is mandatory? Nothing is mandatory. It is just an advisory," remarked the bench during the hearing, emphasising that no penalty, sanction or adverse consequence had been prescribed for those who choose not to sing or play the national song. Dismissing the petition filed by one Muhammed Sayeed Noori, the court said: "We are not inclined to entertain this petition since the petition is pre-mature." The court repeatedly pressed the petitioner's counsel, senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, to demonstrate any legal burden or consequence arising from the circular. "What is the legal burden? Where is the notice to you? The circular only prescribes the protocol what is to be done and the national song be played. We could still understand if your institution would have received a notice or a penalty imposed. It is just an advisory," said the bench, pointing out that neither the petitioner nor his institution had been subjected to any directive or penalty. Hegde argued that terms such as "respect" and "proper decorum" used in the notification could create an implied obligation, placing a "huge burden" on those who may choose not to participate. He also submitted that patriotism could not be compelled. The bench, however, was unconvinced. "The freedom of expression is as much to sing as much not to sing," it observed, adding that the advisory merely laid down protocol for occasions where the national song is played. "It is a premature apprehension. As and when there are consequences or sanction, come to us. At present, you have some vague apprehension of discrimination and it does not have a clear nexus with the impugned advisory," added the court. Drawing a distinction from earlier rulings such as the Bijoe Emmanuel case (1986), where consequences followed for students who refused to sing the national anthem, the court noted that no such punitive framework existed here. "We agree that Bijoe Emmanuel is the correct judgment. But what happened therein? Consequences had to follow if someone did not sing. What is the penalty here? We have not been able to find anything," the bench said....