Vande Mataram row: legal test for Sonia, Rahul gestures explained

The legal core of the Vande Mataram row is whether a gesture or remark can amount to an offence under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act. On August 11, the President assented to an amendment extending Section 3 to the national song, making it operative on the day of the Congress's Independence Day function on August 15. Two advocates have alleged that Congress leader Sonia Gandhi gestured for the song to stop, and that Rahul Gandhi said, "We are not singing Vande Mataram." The Congress says Sonia was asking for a chair for party president Mallikarjun Kharge.

The Federal reports that the substituted Section 3 punishes only intentional prevention of singing or intentional disturbance to an assembly singing the national anthem or song. It does not cover a person who declines to sing or criticises the song. The Supreme Court's 1986 verdict in Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala held that standing silently without singing is not an offence, that reasoning continues to apply. The sentence attributed to Rahul describes abstention, not obstruction, but could be an instruction depending on context. The gesture attributed to Sonia, if it sought a chair, is irrelevant to Section 3.

No FIR has been registered. The police are conducting a preliminary enquiry. The 2026 amendment lacks a commencement clause, so it took effect from the date of assent, August 11. The Delhi complaint reportedly relies on the Supreme Court's 2018 judgment on the anthem in cinema halls, which did not convert breaches of decorum into crimes. The Congress maintains the rendition was completed without interruption. A decision on FIR registration will follow the preliminary enquiry.