The Rajya Sabha on Wednesday passed a Bill to make insult to Vande Mataram a criminal offence by bringing the national song within the penal provisions that protect the national anthem from deliberate obstruction, amid the Opposition’s uproar demanding Union home minister Amit Shah take accountability for police action against students protesting the NEET paper leak and repeated confrontations over House procedure. Track Parliament live updates here
Event Context
The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026, cleared by the Upper House around 3.06 pm, seeks to amend the 1971 law governing insults to national symbols. Introduced in the Rajya Sabha on July 24, it extends to the national song provisions that currently make it an offence to intentionally prevent the singing of Jana Gana Mana or disturb an assembly engaged in singing it.
Also Read I Rajya Sabha passes bill to make insult of Vande Mataram criminal offence
Biju Janata Dal (BJD) MP Sulata Deo said that before bringing the Bill, the government must provide training to all the parliamentarians and legislators to recite, pronounce and respect Vande Mataram correctly. “If they can’t, it will also be an insult to the national honour,” she said.
The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, already penalises insults to the national flag, the Constitution and the national anthem. Intentionally preventing the singing of the anthem or disturbing an assembly engaged in it can attract imprisonment of up to three years, a fine, or both. A second and every subsequent conviction carries a minimum jail term of one year.
The amendment extends these provisions to Vande Mataram, giving deliberate obstruction of the national song during its singing the same penal consequences prescribed for the anthem.
Also Read I ‘Modi clocked it’, ‘waste-guna-huiya’: Gen Z phrases echo in Lok Sabha amid fierce debate on anti-paper leak bill
Minister of state for home Nityanand Rai said the amendment went beyond a legislative change and reflected the country’s collective commitment to its national consciousness, cultural heritage and the ideals of the freedom struggle.
Rai said the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, enacted in 1971, was intended to safeguard the dignity of the National Flag, the Constitution and the National Anthem, Jana Gana Mana. The amendment, he added, would bring Vande Mataram within the same legal framework, making deliberate insults to the national song punishable in the manner prescribed under the existing law.
Match Outlook
The legislation was taken up against the backdrop of persistent protests from Opposition benches. Members shouted slogans against Shah, while arguing that it was the home minister who should answer questions over respect for national honour.
The confrontation spilt into a procedural dispute when Opposition MPs sought to raise points of order. Deputy chairman Harivansh declined to entertain them, citing an earlier ruling that points of order could be raised when the House was functioning in order. The decision drew protests from Opposition members, who accused the Chair of denying them an opportunity to place their objections on record.
BJP members and its allies, however, hailed the legislation as “historic”, arguing that the amendment removes an inconsistency in the existing law: deliberate disruption of the national anthem carries penal consequences, but equivalent conduct involving Vande Mataram did not.
Also Read I Top quotes from Rahul Gandhi’s speech that triggered ruckus in Parliament
AAP MP Sanjay Singh sought to turn that argument against the ruling party. Referring to an old article in an RSS-linked magazine, Singh alleged that the publication had once described the national anthem as an “item of entertainment” and said those responsible should face punishment if the principle behind the legislation were to be applied uniformly.
Singh also accused the BJP of targeting citizens whom, he argued, Vande Mataram itself salutes. His remarks led to a heated exchange with Harivansh, with the AAP MP accusing the Chair of curtailing his right to express his views.
