Union Home Minister Amit Shah is set to introduce the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026, in Rajya Sabha during the monsoon session starting Monday (July 20). This will amend the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, to grant the national song, ‘Vande Mataram’, the same statutory protection currently given to the national anthem, ‘Jana Gana Mana’.According to Section 3 of the Act, intentionally preventing the singing of the national anthem or causing a disturbance to any assembly engaged in such singing is a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment of up to three years, a fine or both. The Bill proposes to include the national song within the ambit of this section.Earlier this year, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs issued guidelines regarding the singing and playing of the national song. The “orders relating to the National Song of India” detailed the authorised lyrics, written by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, and specified occasions for its mass singing, such as “on the unfurling of the National Flag, on cultural occasions or ceremonial functions”. Memorabilia in a small room in Kanthalpara in Naihati, where Bankim Chandra Chatterjee (bust) wrote ‘Vande Mataram’. Photo: Partha PaulThe orders also stated that “whenever the official version of the National Song is sung or played, the audience shall stand to attention”, and suggested that “in all schools, the day’s work may begin with community singing of the National Song”.Following the order, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court by one Muhammed Sayeed Noori challenging the directives. Arguing for him, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde questioned whether people could be “compelled to sing the song in the garb of an advisory”.However, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant dismissed the plea as “premature” and based on a “vague apprehension of discrimination”.Also read | Government set to bring Bill making insult to Vande Mataram a criminal offenceDuring the hearings, the court pointed out that the government’s directive was advisory in nature and there were no penal consequences for those who chose not to sing the national song. If the Bill is passed, however, it would introduce the very penal consequences the court noted were absent at that time.Law on preventing the singing of the anthemStory continues below this adTo understand how the amended law might operate, one might look at how courts have interpreted the existing Section 3 of the 1971 Act, which currently applies only to the national anthem.In 2014, the Kerala High Court in Salman v. State of Kerala clarified what constitutes such a disturbance. The court refused to quash a first information report against the petitioner, accused of “making noise and hue and cry” while the national anthem was being sung.Also read | Centre’s Vande Mataram circular is ‘purely advisory’ with no penal threat: Supreme CourtJustice P Ubaid held that “causing obstruction or prevention to the singing of National Anthem, by making loud or contemptuous noise” falls under the offence defined in Section 3 of the Act and ruled that such serious allegations require police investigation.Right to respectful silenceWhile actively disrupting the singing of the national anthem is an offence under the Act, the Supreme Court distinguished this from simply choosing not to sing in the landmark Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors v. State of Kerala judgment of 1986.Story continues below this adThe case involved three children belonging to the Jehovah’s Witnesses Christian sect who were expelled from school for refusing to sing the national anthem during a morning assembly, even though they stood respectfully in silence while it was sung. Their refusal was based in their religious faith that did not permit them to sing praises to anyone except in prayers to their God.The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the students, holding that their expulsion violated their fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and freedom of religion under Article 25(1) of the Constitution.NewsletterFollow our daily newsletter so you never miss anything important. On Wednesday, we answer readers' questions.SubscribeThe court held that there is no legal provision obliging anyone to sing the national anthem. “Proper respect is shown to the National Anthem by standing up when the National Anthem is sung,” the court said. “It will not be right to say that disrespect is shown by not joining in the singing.”The court emphasised the importance of religious freedom and observed: “Article 25 is an article of faith in the Constitution, incorporated in recognition of the principle that the real test of a true democracy is the ability of even an insignificant minority to find its identity under the country’s Constitution.”Story continues below this adIn the conclusion to its judgment, the bench of Justices O Chinnappa Reddy and M M Dutt remarked: “Our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy preaches tolerance; our constitution practices tolerance; let us not dilute it.”