Polity · 26 Jul 2026

Vande Mataram equal status Prevention of Insults Bill

Consider the following Assertion (A) and Reason (R): Assertion (A): Prior to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026, insulting the National Song 'Vande Mataram' carried no criminal liability under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, despite the 1950 declaration of its equal status with the National Anthem. Reason (R): The Fundamental Duty under Article 51A(a), inserted in 1976, also names only the Constitution, the National Flag and the National Anthem and does not mention the National Song.

ABoth A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
BBoth A and R are true but R is NOT the correct explanation of A
CA is true but R is false
DA is false but R is true

Tests the analytical skill of distinguishing genuine causal explanation from mere factual correlation, particularly requiring attention to chronology between two constitutional/statutory provisions.

Subscribe / Login in App →
About this question

Why in news

The government introduced the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026 in the Rajya Sabha to criminalise insults to the National Song for the first time, drawing opposition from Left MPs who argued the Constituent Assembly deliberately kept the two symbols on different footing.

Why for UPSC

This tests the ability to evaluate whether a reason genuinely explains an assertion versus merely being a parallel true fact - a favoured UPSC assertion-reasoning trap involving chronology (a 1976 provision cannot explain an omission in a 1971 statute).

Prelims summary

The 1971 Act (predating Article 51A by five years) never included the National Song among protected symbols; Article 51A(a) of 1976 similarly omits it - two independent, parallel omissions rather than a cause-and-effect relationship.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.