Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas, leader of the CPI(M) group in the House, has given notice under Rule 67 objecting to 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, a status that the Constitution and Parliament have consciously withheld, Mr. Brittas said. He points to the Statement of Objects and Reasons, which cites Dr. Rajendra Prasad’s January 24, 1950 statement, and argues that it 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.
Mr. Brittas 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, and that the Bill attempts to alter this understanding through ordinary legislation. He also cited the historic consensus limiting official use to the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram.
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.
It also cites 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, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala.
He adds 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, a position he says the Bill would upend.
Mr. Brittas urged Chairman C.P. Radhakrishnan to refuse leave to introduce the Bill.
