Critically evaluate the rationale behind criminalising insult to the National Song under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026, in light of the right to freedom of speech under Article 19.

The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 penalises insults to the National Flag, the Constitution and the National Anthem [2]. The Amendment Bill, introduced in the Rajya Sabha in July 2026, extends Section 3 to the National Song, Vande Mataram, making intentional prevention or disturbance of its singing punishable with imprisonment up to three years [1]. The rationale is symbolically sound but constitutionally demanding.

Rationale supporting criminalisation

• Parity of status: the Constituent Assembly's statement of 24 January 1950 declared Vande Mataram would be "honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana" [3] — yet the anthem alone enjoyed statutory protection.
• Filling a legal vacuum: no specific provision existed against wilfully disrupting an assembly singing the National Song [1].
• Reasonable restriction: Article 19(2) permits curbs in the interests of public order and decency; the Bill targets intentional disruption, not opinion, and complements the Fundamental Duty under Article 51A(a).

Concerns under Article 19(1)(a)

• Compelled patriotism: in Bijoe Emmanuel (1986), the Supreme Court held that respectful standing without singing is no offence — free speech includes the right to remain silent [5].
• Judicial caution: in Shyam Narayan Chouksey (2018), the Court made playing the anthem in cinemas optional, warning against enforced displays of respect [4].
• Vagueness and chilling effect: "insult" and "disrespect" are undefined, inviting subjective policing, vigilantism and complaints against conscientious or religiously grounded abstention.
• Proportionality: a three-year term for an expression-linked offence must satisfy the least-restrictive-means test [1].

The Bill is defensible where it shields public assemblies from deliberate obstruction, but overbroad if read to punish silence or non-participation. Narrow statutory definitions requiring proven intent and actual disturbance, plus a sanction requirement before prosecution, would align it with Article 19(2). Constitutional patriotism, as the Court has repeatedly signalled, is best nurtured through persuasion rather than penalty.