, listing the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026. This legislation seeks to amend the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.
The Centre will begin the Monsoon Session of Parliament on Monday (July 20, 2026) with a move to grant statutory protection to the National Song Vande Mataram., listing the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026. This legislation seeks to amend the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. The existing law penalises acts of disrespect towards national symbols such as the National Flag, the Constitution, and the National Anthem with imprisonment of up to three years.The proposed amendment seeks to extend similar protection to Vande Mataram. According to the Bill, any act causing obstruction in the singing of the National Song or insulting it in any form would become punishable under law.The Bill circulated among the Rajya Sabha members and listed for introduction on Monday (July 20), said, “At the meeting of the Constituent Assembly held on the 24th January, 1950, its President, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, stated that the song Vande Mataram composed by Shri Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, that played a historic role in the Indian freedom struggle, shall be honoured equally with ‘Jana-Gana-Mana’ and shall have equal status with it. Presently, there is no specific legal provision to prevent insults to the singing of Vande Mataram, which is honoured as the National Song. Therefore, to prohibit any person from intentionally preventing the singing of the National Song or causing disturbance to any assembly engaged in such singing, it is proposed to amend Section 3 of the said Act to include the National Song also within its ambit, to make such acts punishable,” the statement said.Withdraw Bill: BrittasThe CPI(M) MP in the Rajya Sabha, John Brittas, has shot off a letter to Mr. Shah seeking withdrawal of the Bill. He said that the profound contribution of Vande Mataram to India’s freedom movement is beyond dispute and commands the highest respect from every Indian. However, the proposed amendment departs from the carefully evolved constitutional settlement that has governed the status of the National Anthem and the National Song since the birth of Indian Republic, he said.Contesting the claim made in the Bill, Mr. Brittas said the statement by Dr. Rajendra Prasad was not a formal decision of the Constituent Assembly through a resolution, much less a constitutional provision. “Equally significant is what followed. After nearly three years of exhaustive deliberations, during which the Constituent Assembly considered every amendment, objection, dissent and competing viewpoint before adopting the Constitution, it consciously refrained from incorporating any provision placing the National Song and the National Anthem on the same legal footing. Nor did it recommend identical statutory obligations or penal consequences,” the letter by Mr. Brittas said.It would, therefore, be constitutionally impermissible to isolate a single sentence from the President’s statement and employ it, divorced from the constitutional process and settlement of which it formed a part, as the sole basis for enlarging criminal liability 76 years later, it said.He said that when the 1971 Act was enacted, Parliament consciously restricted Section 3 to intentional prevention of the singing of the National Anthem. “Had Parliament understood the statement of Dr. Rajendra Prasad of 24 January 1950 as conferring complete legal parity between the National Anthem and the National Song, nothing prevented it from including both in the original enactment. The omission cannot be regarded as accidental. Rather, it reflected Parliament’s understanding that while both deserved the highest respect, only the National Anthem warranted statutory protection under the penal law,” Mr. Brittas said.The present amendment, therefore, represents not a mere clarification but a significant departure from more than five decades of settled legislative policy, it further said.The government’s move comes amid year-long celebrations marking the 150th anniversary of Vande Matara
A file image of CPI(M) MP John Brittas in Rajya Sabha. | The Bill seeks to extend statutory status and penal protection to the National Song, Vande Mataram, a status that the Constitution and Parliament have consciously withheld, Mr. Brittas said. He points to the Statement of Objects and Reasons, which cites Dr. Rajendra Prasad’s January 24, 1950 statement, and argues that it omits that the Constituent Assembly decided not to adopt a formal resolution on the matter. As a result, he said, the statement never carried constitutional force.Mr. Brittas noted that the Constituent Assembly, over nearly three years of deliberation, chose not to place the National Song and National Anthem on equal constitutional footing, and that the Bill attempts to alter this understanding through ordinary legislation. He also cited the historic consensus limiting official use to the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram.The Bill, he said, conflicts with Article 51A(a), which lists respect for the Constitution, the National Flag and the National Anthem as Fundamental Duties but does not mention the National Song.It also cites the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, under which Parliament confined penal protection under Section 3 to the National Anthem alone.Mr. Brittas further raised concerns under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21 and 25, arguing that criminalising conduct related to the National Song would restrict freedom of speech, conscience and religion, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala.He adds that when the Ministry of Home Affairs issued protocol orders on the National Song in January 2026, the Supreme Court declined to intervene only because the protocol carried no penal consequence, a position he says the Bill would upend.Mr. Brittas urged Chairman C.P. Radhakrishnan to refuse leave to introduce the Bill. Published - July 20, 2026 08:55 am IST
Discussion (0)