The CPI(M) has opposed the introduction of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026, which seeks to extend legal and penal protection to Vande Mataram. Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas, leader of the CPI(M) group in the Upper House, submitted a notice under Rule 67 urging the Chairman to reject the Bill, arguing that it is unconstitutional and contradicts the intent of the Constitution.
Brittas said the proposed legislation attempts to place the National Song on the same legal footing as the National Anthem, despite the Constituent Assembly deliberately choosing not to do so. He pointed out that while the Bill refers to Dr Rajendra Prasad’s statement made on January 24, 1950, it overlooks the fact that the Constituent Assembly never adopted a formal resolution granting constitutional status to Vande Mataram.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
According to the CPI(M) leader, the Constitution recognises respect for the National Flag and National Anthem under Article 51A(a) as Fundamental Duties but makes no mention of the National Song. He also noted that the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, provides penal protection only to the National Anthem, reflecting Parliament’s original intent.
Brittas further argued that criminalising acts related to the National Song could infringe upon fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21 and 25 of the Constitution. He cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Bijoe Emmanuel case, which upheld citizens’ freedom of conscience and expression.
He also referred to the Ministry of Home Affairs’ protocol issued earlier this year regarding Vande Mataram, noting that the Supreme Court declined to interfere because the guidelines carried no criminal penalties. Brittas argued that the proposed Bill would fundamentally alter that position by introducing punitive provisions and urged the Rajya Sabha Chairman to refuse permission for its introduction.
