On Vande Mataram, a law in search of a crime
Parliament passed the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act on December 23, 1971. Barely a generation removed from colonial rule, India since the late 1960s bore signs of erosion of its early idealism. The victory against Pakistan in the Bangladesh War earlier that month had provided a moment of national triumph. The law, which purportedly sought to give legal backing to a Directive Principle of State Policy, criminalised insults to the national anthem, flag and Constitution. Then as now, however, it is likely that few believed that respect and reverence can be enforced through punitive legislation. The law was meant, arguably, to capture a political moment and give expression to it. Now, the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026 — passed in Parliament this week — makes an “insult” to the national song punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment, placing‘Vande Mataram’ at par with the national anthem. In essence, it is a law in search of a crime. At best, it is superfluous and at worst, a blunt instrument in the hands of an overzealous prosecutorial machinery. According to data from the National Records Bureau, there were 1,102 arrests under the 1971 Act between 2014 and 2024, with just 60 convictions. Acquittals outpaced convictions each year, and an average of 48 cases were pending investigation and 221 cases pending trial in the same period. The rate of “crimes against national symbols” per lakh population is extremely low. By all accounts, then, the amended law expands the ambit of criminality with little justification. In the current context, too, the government frequently invites accusations of weaponising the criminal justice system to target opponents. The 2026 Amendment can only deepen apprehensions of its misuse. In theBudgetSession, the Union government tabled, and Parliament passed, the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026. It built on the 2023 Jan Vishwas Act by decriminalising and removing several economic offences. That legislative scheme indicated the government’s commitment to its slogan of “minimum government, maximum governance”, especially welcome, given that the state is a litigant in over half the pending cases in India’s overburdened courts. In letter and spirit, the ‘Vande Mataram’ law is a backsliding on that commitment.
- 1This amendment directly engages Article 19(1)(a)'s guarantee of freedom of speech and expression, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) for grounds like public order and decency, and also touches Article 51A(a), the fundamental duty to respect the national flag and anthem. CLAT aspirants should note that fundamental duties are non-justiciable but are sometimes invoked to justify restrictive legislation, a tension the Supreme Court has explored in cases like Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), which protected students who declined to sing the national anthem on religious grounds.
- 2Domestically, this reflects a recurring pattern where symbolic nationalism legislation resurfaces during politically significant moments, echoing the original 1971 Act's passage right after the Bangladesh War victory; the 2026 amendment arrives amid ongoing debates about the BJP-led government's approach to national identity politics. Aspirants should track how symbolic legislation often correlates with electoral or commemorative timing, a recurring theme in Indian political current affairs.
- 3The regulatory history includes the original Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, and its interaction with the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 and its 2026 successor, which decriminalised numerous economic and regulatory offences across 42 statutes to ease compliance burdens. The contrast between decriminalising economic offences while criminalising symbolic ones is a useful comparative legal reasoning point for CLAT's legal aptitude section.
- 4Empirically, the editorial cites National Records Bureau data showing 1,102 arrests but only 60 convictions under the 1971 Act between 2014 and 2024, with an average of 48 cases pending investigation and 221 pending trial annually, indicating the law's low conviction rate despite its coercive potential. These figures illustrate a broader pattern in Indian criminal law where high arrest-to-conviction gaps raise concerns about process as punishment, a recurring theme in criminal justice reform debates.