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 the Budget Session, 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.

Overall Analysis

The editorial critically examines the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026, arguing that criminalising insults to Vande Mataram is unnecessary and potentially harmful to democratic values. The central argument is that patriotism and respect for national symbols cannot be cultivated through criminal law, especially when there is little evidence of a widespread problem requiring such legislation.

The editorial opens by placing the original 1971 Act in its historical context. It explains that the law emerged during a period of heightened national pride following India’s victory in the Bangladesh War. While acknowledging the political circumstances of that time, the author questions whether legal punishment can genuinely create respect for national symbols. By describing the amendment as “a law in search of a crime,” the editorial argues that the government is creating a legal solution for a problem that barely exists. The language is persuasive and critical, using irony to challenge the necessity of the amendment.

The second part strengthens this criticism with statistical evidence. Data from the National Crime Records Bureau is used to show that offences under the existing Act are already extremely rare and have a low conviction rate. The editorial argues that expanding criminal liability without any demonstrable increase in such offences lacks rational justification. It further warns that, in the present political environment, where governments are often accused of using criminal laws against critics, the amendment could become another tool for selective prosecution. The use of empirical data alongside constitutional concerns makes the argument both logical and credible.

In the concluding section, the editorial contrasts the amendment with the government’s own Jan Vishwas initiative, which aimed to reduce criminalisation and simplify governance. The author points out the contradiction between decriminalising minor economic offences on one hand and creating new criminal offences related to symbolic acts on the other. This comparison reinforces the argument that the amendment represents a retreat from the principle of “minimum government, maximum governance.” The editorial ultimately suggests that excessive criminalisation weakens both democratic freedoms and judicial efficiency rather than strengthening national honour.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Superfluous – Unnecessary; more than what is required.
2. Ambit – The scope or range of something.
3. Weaponising – Using something as a tool to attack, intimidate, or gain political advantage.
4. Apprehensions – Feelings of fear or concern about something that may happen.
5. Backsliding – Reverting to an earlier or less desirable state; moving away from progress.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial argues that the amendment creates a criminal offence without any compelling public need. Instead of promoting patriotism, it risks expanding state power, increasing unnecessary litigation, and enabling the misuse of criminal law against dissent. Genuine respect for national symbols, the author suggests, is earned through civic values and democratic culture rather than legal coercion.

Tone: Critical, analytical, persuasive, and cautionary.