Vande Mataram Bill: Why Legal Protection Is Not a Singing Mandate

Equal protection for Vande Mataram must not be understood as imposing an obligation upon citizens to sing it. The Amendment protects Vande Mataram from intentional obstruction and disturbance alone.

(Photo: Aroop Mishra/The Quint)

Last week, the President of India granted assent to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026, which was passed by Parliament earlier this month. The Amendment makes changes to the 1971 Act, which criminalises insults to the National Flag, Constitution of India, and the National Anthem, and extends this protection to the National Song as well.

The text of the Amendment is extremely pithy—and comprises only two sections. However, it carries behind it a long history of a continued push seeking equal recognition for the National Song, which largely played out before the courts.

The Amendment also reflects a change in the position of the Union government, which had in 2016 submitted before the Delhi High Court that it had no intention of framing statutory provisions granting protection to Vande Mataram akin to those applicable to the National Anthem.

Protection, Not Compulsion

The Amendment is straightforward. It only revises Section 3, which previously stated that anyone who intentionally prevented the singing of the National Anthem or caused disturbance to any assembly engaged in singing it shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or both. The Amendment extends this protection to Vande Mataram as well, thereby placing it on the same statutory footing.

However, it must be clarified that the Amendment does not make it compulsory for a person to sing Vande Mataram, nor does it criminalise a refusal to do so. The position of law on this aspect was settled by the Supreme Court in Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala (1986), albeit in the context of the National Anthem.

In Bijoe, three schoolchildren belonging to the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith stood respectfully when the National Anthem was being sung in their school but refrained from singing it on account of their religious beliefs. They were subsequently expelled for their conduct. This was challenged before the court, which held that their expulsion from the school violated their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25 of the Constitution, i.e., the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

The court expressly noted that there is no provision of law which obligates anyone to sing the National Anthem, and that a person who stands respectfully when it is sung but does not join in the singing “does not either prevent the singing of the National Anthem or cause disturbance to an assembly engaged in such singing”. Hence, such conduct does not violate the 1971 Act.

The same distinction should equally apply to the National Song under the amended Section 3, and hence, criminal sanctions would be attracted only where a person prevents others from singing Vande Mataram or disturbs an assembly engaged in its singing, and not on a mere refusal to sing oneself.

It must be noted that in a subsequent case in 2017, the Attorney General had urged the court to revisit this judgment, arguing that patriotism must be inculcated in children, and hence, singing of the National Anthem must be made compulsory. However, the court did not disturb the law laid down in Bijoe Emmanuel.

A Demand Repeatedly Taken to Courts

The Amendment effectively responds to a long-standing demand which has played out for years before the courts through various petitions, almost all of which had at their centre a statement made by the first President of India, Rajendra Prasad.

On 24 January 1950, while speaking in the Constituent Assembly on the issue of the National Anthem, Prasad remarked that Vande Mataram shall also be honoured equally and have equal status with it. This remark was repeatedly cited as a justification for filing petitions.

For instance, in 2017, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya filed a PIL before the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the Centre for framing a national policy to promote Vande Mataram. However, the court declined to entertain the prayer on the grounds that Article 51A(a) of the Constitution, which imposes a fundamental duty to respect the National Flag and the National Anthem, makes no reference to the National Song.

Subsequently, similar petitions were filed before the Delhi High Court in 2019 and 2023, seeking parity between the National Anthem and the National Song, but were dismissed on similar grounds.

In particular, in Gautam R Morarka v Union of India (2017), it was argued that appropriate statutory protection must be given to the National Song under the 1971 Act, and, hence, the Union of India must be directed to introduce a Bill in Parliament for amending the Act.

The court categorically held that it was not within its remit to issue a direction to enact a law, observing that “this court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to enact and effectuate legislation”. The Madras High Court adopted a similar approach, observing that whether the singing of Vande Mataram should be mandated was a matter of policy to be decided by the State, and not the courts.

From ‘No Need for Legal Protection’ to a Change in Law

A perusal of the court records in these matters highlights an interesting trajectory in the Union government’s position on the status of the National Song. In 2013, Morarka, the same petitioner referred to above, had made representations to the Union government on the issue. Subsequently, the government filed an affidavit before the court submitting that it had constituted a committee to look into the matter.

On 29 March 2016, the committee decided that the status quo must be maintained, while at the same time expressing hope that citizens would continue to show respect to Vande Mataram. It also referred to the National Song as a ‘creative work’ and observed that protection under law was not the only means of showing respect to it.

The order read:

“9. Whereas, protection under the law is not the only way to show respect to a creative work. Billions of Indians have the deepest respect and unabiding faith in the Ramcharitmanas and the Mahabharat. Christians across the world similarly have faith in the Bible; the works of Kalidas and Shakespeare are and have been revered across the world, and across centuries; and aartis are sung with utmost devotion and respect. Yet none of these have, indeed none of them require, the protection of law. In fact, such work of creativity and/or of religious nature can be said to be beyond and above law…”

The order ultimately rejected the representation and concluded that Vande Mataram occupied a unique place in the country, one which did not require formal support or codification. It was relying upon this order that the Delhi High Court rejected Morarka’s petition in 2017. The present Amendment, therefore, marks a clear change in the Union Government’s position: a decade after concluding that the respect accorded to Vande Mataram did not require statutory protection, it has now chosen to secure such protection through law.

In many ways, the Amendment gives statutory effect to the assurance made in the Constituent Assembly that Vande Mataram shall be honoured equally with the National Anthem, and it does so through the appropriate constitutional forum. While hearing petitions seeking similar relief, the courts had repeatedly remarked that whether such protection should be granted was ultimately a decision for the Parliament to make.

At the same time, equal protection for the National Song must not be understood as imposing an obligation upon citizens to sing it. The Supreme Court’s decision in Bijoe Emmanuel remains an important reminder that respect for a national symbol cannot be equated with compelled participation. The Amendment protects Vande Mataram from intentional obstruction and disturbance alone, and should not become the basis for requiring citizens to demonstrate their respect for it in any particular manner.

(Swapnil Tripathi leads Charkha, the Constitutional Law Centre at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. He specialises in constitutional law and administrative law, with a particular focus on constitutional interpretation and judicial review. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)