Vande Mataram gets same criminal protection as national anthem

Parliament has passed the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026, extending the same criminal law protection to Vande Mataram that the national anthem enjoys. The Bill was introduced in…

Parliament has passed the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026, extending the same criminal law protection to Vande Mataram that the national anthem enjoys. The Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on July 24 and cleared both Houses within a week, with Opposition parties including the DMK and Congress objecting to the lack of debate and the timing. The amendment substitutes Section 3 of the 1971 Act to punish intentionally preventing the singing of, or causing disturbance to, the singing of both the national anthem and the national song, with up to three years' imprisonment and a mandatory minimum one year for repeat offenders.

Vande Mataram gets same criminal protection as national anthem

The amendment does not specify which stanzas of Vande Mataram must be sung for protection to apply. The Constituent Assembly in 1950 had deliberately kept the later devotional stanzas out of civic life, following a 1937 Congress compromise to sing only the first two stanzas at official gatherings. The statute does not compel anyone to sing or prescribe a mandatory version, only penalises disruption of a rendition that is occurring.

The speed of passage meant the Bill received minimal parliamentary scrutiny, despite touching on religious sentiment, free expression and criminal liability. The government had since late 2025 pushed to popularise all six stanzas at official functions, but the text of the law is narrower than the political messaging.

Indian Opinion Analysis

The 1937 Congress compromise that limited Vande Mataram to two stanzas was a pragmatic response to Muslim League objections about the later verses' goddess imagery and readings of Anandamath as anti-Muslim. By not specifying which stanzas are protected, the amendment creates an ambiguity that could be tested in court if a person disrupts a rendition of only the first two stanzas, which are the secular ones. The Bijoe Emmanuel case (1986) established that genuine religious objection to singing the national anthem is protected under Article 25, and that precedent would likely apply to the national song too. The next flashpoint may come at a state function where an official insists on all six stanzas and a citizen refuses on grounds of conscience.


Source: thehindu.com

This story was synthesised by AI from the source linked above.

Ask their opinion on this story
They have read this article, our coverage, and the web.
AI simulations of historical figures. Responses are generated from the historical record, not authentic statements.

0 Votes: 0 Upvotes, 0 Downvotes (0 Points)

Share your opinion

Loading Next Post...
Search Trending
Ask their opinion
Loading

Signing-in 3 seconds...

Signing-up 3 seconds...

All fields are required.