AIMPLB opposes Bill making alleged disrespect to Vande Mataram punishable

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has opposed the passage of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026, stating that making alleged disrespect to Vande Mataram a punishable offence undermines religious freedom and India's constitutional, secular and democratic principles.

In a statement issued on Friday, the Board said using legislation to compel citizens to accept or participate in a religious concept was inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution. It argued that making Vande Mataram legally enforceable for all sections of society amounted to imposing a particular religious belief through state coercion, Maktoob Media reported.

AIMPLB spokesperson Dr S. Q. R. Ilyas said any attempt to make Vande Mataram compulsory for all citizens through legal coercion was contrary to the Constitution's fundamental principles. He noted that the Constituent Assembly had accepted only the first two stanzas of the song at the national level after detailed deliberations, while the remaining portions, containing religious references, were not considered compatible with India's secular character.

According to Dr Ilyas, certain passages of Vande Mataram portray the motherland as a goddess and call for her worship, a concept he said was incompatible with the Islamic doctrine of Tawheed, the belief in the absolute oneness of Allah. He argued that Muslims, who worship only Allah, cannot be compelled to participate in practices that carry religious meanings contrary to their faith.

He further contended that forcing Muslims to participate in a song, slogan or practice with religious connotations that conflicted with their beliefs violated constitutional protections.

Referring to Articles 25 and 19 of the Constitution, Dr Ilyas said they guarantee freedom of religion and freedom of expression, respectively, and therefore no citizen could be compelled to participate in any song, slogan, ideology or symbol against their conscience or religious beliefs.

He also cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, saying the court had held that individuals could not be punished for respectfully refraining from participating in the national anthem when doing so conflicted with their religious beliefs. He added that the judgment recognised that freedom of expression includes the right to remain silent and that respectful non-participation cannot be treated as an act of disrespect.

Dr Ilyas said Muslims deeply loved their country and regarded love for the homeland as part of their civic and moral responsibility, but stressed that patriotism and worship were distinct concepts. He argued that patriotism should be judged by commitment to the Constitution, the people and their rights rather than by reciting any particular slogan or song.

The AIMPLB also urged the Union government to focus on issues such as unemployment, inflation, poverty, education, healthcare, economic inequality and social injustice instead of pursuing what it described as divisive measures. It said India would become stronger and more united only when every citizen enjoyed equal dignity, justice and freedom, and when patriotism was measured by adherence to the Constitution and the protection of fundamental rights.