CPI (M) si oppone all'introduzione del disegno di legge per dare protezione legale al Vande Mataram, lo definisce incostituzionale

CPI(M) leader John Brittas has formally objected to the introduction of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026, in the Rajya Sabha, calling it unconstitutional. The bill proposes granting legal protection to the national song, Vande Mataram, which Brittas argues contradicts the intent of the Constitution and parliamentary decisions. His objection was filed under Rule 67, a procedural mechanism allowing members to raise issues before bills are introduced. The proposed amendment aims to provide statutory recognition and penalties for insults directed against Vande Mataram. This follows a directive issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in January 2026, which outlined protocols for the use of the national song. However, Brittas pointed out that these guidelines lacked punitive measures, and the Supreme Court had previously declined to intervene due to their non-penal nature. He warned that the new bill could reverse this stance, potentially infringing on fundamental rights. According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the bill, the proposal is based on a reference to Dr. Rajendra Prasad’s statement from January 24, 1950. Brittas challenged the accuracy of this citation, noting that the Constituent Assembly did not adopt a formal resolution regarding the status of the National Song. Instead, the assembly deliberately chose not to grant it constitutional standing, a decision that the bill now seeks to overturn through ordinary legislation. Brittas emphasized that the Constituent Assembly spent nearly three years deliberating on matters of national symbols and ultimately opted to limit the official use of Vande Mataram to its first two stanzas. He argued that the bill's attempt to confer statutory status on the song represents a misinterpretation of historical consensus and undermines the principle of legislative restraint. The bill also clashes with Article 51A(a) of the Constitution, which outlines Fundamental Duties including respect for the National Flag and Anthem but does not mention the National Song. Furthermore, it revises the provisions of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, which currently limits penal consequences to offenses involving the National Anthem. Brittas contended that extending these protections to Vande Mataram would create an imbalance and conflict with existing legal frameworks. In addition to constitutional arguments, Brittas raised concerns about civil liberties. He cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, which affirmed the right to free speech and religious freedom. He warned that criminalizing actions related to the National Song could lead to restrictions on expression, conscience, and belief. He also highlighted that the current protocol orders issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs were not subject to judicial review precisely because they lacked punitive elements, a situation he believes the new bill would change. Brittas urged Rajya Sabha Chairman C.P. Radhakrishnan to deny the bill’s introduction, emphasizing that the measure lacks both constitutional foundation and democratic legitimacy. The debate surrounding the bill reflects broader tensions between state authority and individual freedoms, as well as ongoing discussions about the role of historical symbols in modern governance. The outcome of this dispute will likely depend on how the legislature interprets the balance between national identity and constitutional principles.