Polity and Governance › Constitution and rights

Freedoms, privacy and personal liberty (Articles 19 to 22)

Articles 19 to 22: the freedoms of the citizen, the right to life and personal liberty that protects every person, the rights the courts have read into it, and the safeguards on arrest and detention.

Foundation note: The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

Showing 3 of 6 articles, those that changed from 1 to 30 September 2026.Show all

Vande Mataram and the national honour law

Prelims and Mains

LeadVande Mataram and the national honour lawJuly 2026

Why in news

Parliament passed the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026, which extends to the national song, Vande Mataram, the protection that the 1971 Act gives the National Anthem. The Rajya Sabha passed it on 29 July and the Lok Sabha on 30 July 2026.

Background

The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 punishes insult to the National Flag and the Constitution, and the intentional prevention of the singing of the National Anthem.
Vande Mataram was written by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay and appears in his novel Anandamath.
On 24 January 1950 the Constituent Assembly recorded that the song would be honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana.
Until 2026 the song had no protection in criminal law.

What the amendment does

It becomes an offence to intentionally prevent the singing of Vande Mataram, or to disturb an assembly engaged in singing it.
The punishment is imprisonment of up to three years, or a fine, or both.
The song now stands on the same footing in criminal law as the anthem.

The constitutional questions

Is silence an offence? The text punishes prevention and disturbance. It does not say that a person who declines to sing commits an offence.
Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak, and Article 25 protects conscience.
Fundamental duty: Article 51A(a) asks citizens to respect the Constitution, the National Flag and the National Anthem. It does not name the national song.

Vagueness: the Act does not define the national song, and a penal law in vague words can chill lawful conduct.
The government's case: equal honour, recorded in 1950, should carry equal protection in law.

Cases to cite

Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986): students who stood respectfully but did not sing the anthem, for reasons of faith, were protected by Articles 19(1)(a) and 25.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): a penal provision in vague terms is unconstitutional because it chills free speech.
Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India (2018): playing the anthem in cinema halls was made optional.

The way forward

Read the offence narrowly: obstruction and disturbance, never abstention.
Issue clear guidance to the police, so that the law is not used against those who stay silent.
Promote respect for national symbols through education, which serves the purpose better than prosecution.

Prelims facts

The Act is of 1971; it covers the flag, the Constitution, the anthem and now the national song.
Article 51A(a) names the Constitution, the flag and the anthem, not the song.
Vande Mataram is from *Anandamath, by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay
Maximum punishment: three years, or fine, or both.

Open the lead on its own page

The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 punishes insult to the National Flag and the Constitution, and the intentional prevention of the singing of the National Anthem.

What changed

22 Sep 2026newly added
- On 22 September the Supreme Court told the Union it expected no criminal consequences for a person who does not sing Vande Mataram, in whole or in part, for reasons of religion or conscience.
- It will examine the amended Section 3 against the fundamental rights, on a petition that also notes that the Act does not define the national song.
The Hindu, 22 Sep 2026: Supreme Court says state can set National Song, but cannot impose conscientious objectors to penal action (opens in a new tab) · LiveLaw, 22 Sep 2026: We expect no criminal consequences on person not singing Vande Mataram for religious reasons: Supreme Court to Centre (opens in a new tab)

Show history (2 other updates)

6 Aug 2026Briefnewly addedThe Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026 was published in the Gazette on 6 August as Act No. 11 of 2026, after the President's assent. Gazette of India, 6 Aug 2026: The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026 (Act No. 11 of 2026), text via LiveLaw (opens in a new tab) · The Hindu, 11 Aug 2026: President Murmu gives assent to Bill criminalising insult to Vande Mataram (opens in a new tab)
30 Jul 2026LeadVande Mataram and the national honour law

The High Level Committee on Demographic Changes: its questionnaire to States

Mains

The High Level Committee on Demographic Changes was set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 26 May 2026.

What changed

28 Sep 2026Briefnewly addedIt sent States 35 questions seeking data by religion for the past 15 years. The legal point: the State may collect personal data only by law, for a legitimate aim and in proportion (K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017). The Hindu, 28 Sep 2026: States stumped as demography panel seeks religion-wise data on vehicles, schools, voters (opens in a new tab)

Preventive detention under the National Security Act

Prelims and Mains

The National Security Act, 1980 allows a person to be detained without trial to prevent acts prejudicial to security or public order.

What changed

29 Sep 2026Briefnewly addedOn 29 September 2026 the Supreme Court quashed a detention and held that a confession to the police cannot alone justify detention. It held that using the Act to defeat a bail order is punitive, and imposed ₹10 lakh costs on the State. LiveLaw, 29 Sep 2026: Supreme Court daily round up, September 29, 2026 (opens in a new tab)

Also filed elsewhere

Protest cases quashed under Article 142 · on Judicial review and the reach of the courts
Article 142 lets the Supreme Court pass any order needed to do complete justice in a case before it.