Vande Mataram Amendment Bill: AIMPLB calls it assault on religious freedom
Synopsis
The AIMPLB has pushed back hard against a parliamentary Amendment Bill criminalising disrespect to 'Vande Mataram', arguing it forces a religious act on citizens who revere the nation but cannot worship it as a deity. The Board's invocation of Articles 19 and 25 signals a likely constitutional challenge ahead.
Key Takeaways
The AIMPLB on 31 July opposed a parliamentary Amendment Bill making alleged disrespect to 'Vande Mataram' a punishable offence.
Ilyas called the Bill 'a serious assault on the religious freedom of citizens.' The Board cited Article 25 (religious freedom) and Article 19 (freedom of expression) as constitutional safeguards against compelled participation.
AIMPLB distinguished between 'love for the motherland' and 'worship of the motherland,' arguing the two cannot be equated.
The Board urged the Union government to focus instead on unemployment, inflation, poverty, and social injustice.
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) on Friday, 31 July voiced strong opposition to a parliamentary Amendment Bill that makes alleged disrespect to 'Vande Mataram' a punishable offence, calling the legislation a direct attack on the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution of India. The Board termed the move 'contrary to the constitutional, secular and democratic ethos of the country.'
AIMPLB's Core Objection
AIMPLB spokesperson S.Q.R. Ilyas said that any attempt to make 'Vande Mataram' compulsory for all sections and religious communities through legal coercion is 'objectionable and a serious assault on the religious freedom of citizens.' He drew a clear distinction between two concepts that critics of the Bill argue are being conflated: love for the motherland, and worship of the motherland.
According to Ilyas, imposing a particular religious concept or belief upon all citizens through legislation is inconsistent with the basic spirit of the Constitution. He emphasised that patriotism should not be measured by the recitation of any particular slogan or song.
Constitutional Grounds Cited
The AIMPLB invoked Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees every citizen the freedom to profess, practise, and follow his or her religion, and Article 19, which guarantees freedom of expression. Ilyas argued that these provisions clearly imply that no citizen can be compelled to adopt or participate in any song, slogan, ideology, or symbol that conflicts with his or her religious beliefs and conscience.
'Muslims deeply love their country and consider love for the homeland part of their civic and moral responsibility, but they cannot regard the country as a deity or goddess,' Ilyas said in a statement.
Call to Focus on Core Issues
The AIMPLB urged the Union government to step back from what it described as 'sensitive and divisive measures' and instead direct attention toward resolving what the Board called the country's real problems — unemployment, inflation, poverty, education, healthcare, economic inequality, and social injustice.
Ilyas said a strong and united India can only be built where every citizen enjoys equal dignity, justice, and freedom; where patriotism is not judged through the prism of religious beliefs; and where the supremacy of the Constitution, religious freedom, and fundamental civil rights are protected at all costs.
Broader Context
The Amendment Bill's passage comes amid a broader national debate over the boundaries of compelled civic participation and minority religious rights. Critics argue that legislating mandatory reverence for national symbols risks criminalising conscientious objection rooted in faith. Proponents, however, contend that the Bill reinforces national unity and respect for a song that holds constitutional recognition as one of India's national songs. The Supreme Court has previously addressed the compulsory singing of 'Vande Mataram' in schools, and this legislation is expected to face fresh legal scrutiny.
Point of View
Because it sets up a credible constitutional challenge if the Bill is enacted. The deeper tension the Board surfaces is one Indian law has never fully resolved: where does civic duty end and compelled religious expression begin? Legislating reverence for a national song — as distinct from a flag or anthem — is contested territory, and the courts have historically been cautious here. Mainstream coverage tends to frame this as a Hindu-Muslim binary; the more consequential question is whether Parliament has the authority to criminalise conscientious objection rooted in sincere religious belief, regardless of which community holds it.
NationPress
31 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the Vande Mataram Amendment Bill propose?
The Amendment Bill, passed in Parliament, makes alleged disrespect to 'Vande Mataram' a punishable offence. It effectively creates a legal obligation to show reverence to the national song, with penalties for those deemed to have disrespected it.
Why is the AIMPLB opposing the Vande Mataram Amendment Bill?
The AIMPLB argues the Bill violates Articles 19 and 25 of the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of expression and religious freedom respectively. The Board contends that Muslims love their country but cannot regard it as a deity or goddess, making compelled recitation of 'Vande Mataram' a conflict with their faith.
What constitutional provisions does the AIMPLB cite against the Bill?
The Board cites Article 25, which guarantees every citizen the right to profess, practise, and follow their religion, and Article 19, which guarantees freedom of expression. It argues these provisions protect citizens from being compelled to participate in any song or symbol against their conscience.
Who is S.Q.R. Ilyas?
S.Q.R. Ilyas is the spokesperson of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), the body that issued the statement opposing the Vande Mataram Amendment Bill on 31 July.
What does the AIMPLB want the government to focus on instead?
The AIMPLB has urged the Union government to address what it calls the country's real problems — unemployment, inflation, poverty, education, healthcare, economic inequality, and social injustice — rather than pursuing what the Board described as sensitive and divisive legislative measures.
