CPI(M) opposes bill to grant Vande Mataram legal protection, cites constitutional concerns
Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas, leader of the CPI(M) group in the House, has given notice under Rule 67 objecting to the introduction of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026. The Bill seeks to extend statutory status and penal protection to the National Song, Vande Mataram.
Mr. Brittas argued that the Constitution and Parliament have consciously withheld such a status. He pointed to the Bill's Statement of Objects and Reasons, which cites Dr. Rajendra Prasad's statement of January 24, 1950, but omits that the Constituent Assembly decided not to adopt a formal resolution on the matter. As a result, he said, the statement never carried constitutional force.
He noted that the Constituent Assembly, over nearly three years of deliberation, chose not to place the National Song and National Anthem on equal constitutional footing. The Bill, he contended, attempts to alter this understanding through ordinary legislation. He also referenced the historic consensus limiting official use of the National Song to its first two stanzas.
The Bill, he said, conflicts with Article 51A(a), which lists respect for the Constitution, the National Flag and the National Anthem as Fundamental Duties but does not mention the National Song. He also cited the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, under which Parliament confined penal protection under Section 3 to the National Anthem alone.
Mr. Brittas further raised concerns under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21 and 25, arguing that criminalising conduct related to the National Song would restrict freedom of speech, conscience and religion. He cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, which protected the right of individuals to refrain from singing the National Anthem on religious grounds.
He noted that when the Ministry of Home Affairs issued protocol orders on the National Song in January 2026, the Supreme Court declined to intervene only because the protocol carried no penal consequence. The Bill, he said, would upend that position.
Mr. Brittas urged Chairman C.P. Radhakrishnan to refuse leave to introduce the Bill.
