Assertion (A): The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026 does not, by itself, compel any citizen to sing or otherwise actively participate in the rendition of Vande Mataram.
Reason (R): Fundamental duties under Article 51A of the Constitution are non-justiciable and cannot override the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III and the amended Section 3 penalises only intentional prevention or disruption of an ongoing rendition, not mere non-participation.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above two statements?
Polity · 25 Aug 2026
Vande Mataram Amendment Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act
About this question
Why in news
Parliament passed the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026 within a week in late July, with limited debate, extending anthem-level criminal protection to Vande Mataram - reviving questions about whether the new law compels participation and about the song's contentious later stanzas dropped by the 1937 Congress Working Committee.
Why for UPSC
Assertion-Reasoning is UPSC's preferred format for testing whether a candidate can distinguish a law's actual textual scope from its political framing - exactly the gap this amendment illustrates between narrow statutory language and broad public perception.
Prelims summary
The 2026 amendment penalises only disruption of Vande Mataram's rendition, not non-participation. Article 51A duties are non-justiciable and cannot override Part III rights; Bijoe Emmanuel already protects conscientious dissent. Only the first two (secular) stanzas are officially sung, per the 1937 Congress Working Committee resolution.
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.