The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 is being amended to include Vande Mataram. Critically examine the legal and constitutional implications of criminalising insult to the National Song.

Q. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 is being amended to include Vande Mataram. Critically examine the legal and constitutional implications of criminalising insult to the National Song. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Enacted as Act 69 of 1971, the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act shields the National Flag, the Constitution and the National Anthem — but not Vande Mataram, whose status as National Song rests on President Rajendra Prasad's declaration of 24 January 1950 rather than on any constitutional article [1][4]. The proposed substitution of Section 3 corrects a real anomaly, yet carries genuine rights-based risks [2].

The legal case for parity - Closes a statutory gap: Section 3 today penalises only preventing the singing of, or disturbing an assembly engaged in, the National Anthem; the amendment extends identical cover to the National Song, with the same penalty — up to three years' imprisonment, or fine, or both [1][2]. - Convention converted into law: it gives enforceable backing to what were executive instruments — the 1950 declaration and the MHA's February 2026 protocol mandating the full six-stanza rendition at official functions [3][4]. - Due process preserved: Cabinet approval alone alters nothing; legitimacy flows only from passage by both Houses [2].

Constitutional concerns - Article 19(1)(a): penal restrictions on expression must survive the reasonableness test of Article 19(2). In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) the Supreme Court held that respectful non-participation is not disrespect, and protected it under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25(1) [5]. - Freedom of conscience: the later stanzas' devotional imagery — the reason the Congress Working Committee confined official use to the first two stanzas in 1937 — makes compelled rendition sensitive for religious minorities [3]. - Definitional vagueness: "insult" remains undefined, inviting subjective policing and selective use against dissent.

Statutory parity between the National Anthem and the National Song is a coherent, long-overdue step, provided Parliament defines the offence narrowly and retains mens rea as its core. Codifying the Bijoe Emmanuel safeguard within the amended Section 3 would let the law honour national symbols without diluting the constitutional morality those very symbols represent.

(~325 words)

Sources: 1. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (Act 69 of 1971) — India Code — existing scope (Flag, Constitution, Anthem) and the three-year/fine penalty 2. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026 — PIB Factsheet — substitution of Section 3 to cover the National Song; parliamentary route 3. Vande Mataram — Press Information Bureau — six stanzas, 1937 restriction to the first two, official status 4. Centre issues guidelines for rendition of National Song 'Vande Mataram' — NewsOnAir (Prasar Bharati) — MHA February 2026 protocol mandating all six stanzas at official events 5. Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors v. State of Kerala (11 August 1986) — Articles 19(1)(a) and 25(1); respectful non-participation protected