Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

GS Paper: GS2-15.Transaparency and accountability (institutional and other measures); Citizens Charter, E-Governance (applications, models, successes, limitations, potential)

  • NTA’s Big Reset: Four-Level Scrutiny, 600 Experts Removed

    Why in the News

    The NTA is overhauling its examination system after the NEET-UG paper leak and UGC-NET errors. Measures include removing 600 experts, introducing a four-tier paper-checking system, strengthening CISF security, and redesigning confidential operations.

    What is NTA?

    • Established: 2017 by the Ministry of Education as an autonomous testing agency.
    • Purpose: Conduct transparent and standardised entrance and eligibility examinations.
    • Major exams: NEET-UG, JEE Main, UGC-NET, CUET, CMAT and CSIR-UGC NET.
    • Governance: Director General + Governing Body chaired by an eminent educationist.

    Confidential Operations (CONOPS)

    • Covers question setting, translation, moderation, printing, storage, transport and distribution.
    • Reforms include secluded rooms, air-gapped systems and device deposit protocols.
    • Air-Gapped System: A computer/network physically isolated from external networks, reducing the risk of remote data theft.

    What is UGC-NET?

    • Conducted by NTA to determine eligibility for Assistant Professor and Junior Research Fellowship (JRF).
    • Conducted twice a year across multiple subjects.

    Key Reforms

    • 600 experts removed and new experts inducted.
    • Four-tier question paper verification.
    • New secured premises with CISF protection.
    • Audit of examination processes.
    • Complete redesign of confidential operations.

    Major Challenges

    • Long confidentiality chain: Multiple actors increase leak risks.
    • Outsourced infrastructure: Dependence on private examination centres.
    • Limited permanent staff: Heavy reliance on deputationists and contractual experts.
    • Question quality: Factual, translation and typographical errors.
    • Multilingual risks: Multiple language versions increase error points.
    • Weak investigation: Lack of standardised investigation and forensic procedures.
    • No independent appellate mechanism: Disputes often reach courts.
    • Candidate burden: Cancellations impose significant time and financial costs.

  • Anti-paper-leak law amended amid exam-integrity protests

    Why in the News

    The Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 seeks to strengthen the 2024 law against organised cheating and examination paper leaks amid concerns over NEET and recruitment examination irregularities.

    What is the Public Examination Act, 2024?

    1. Objective: Criminalises organised cheating, paper leaks, impersonation and other unfair means.
    2. Coverage: Applies to major public examinations conducted by bodies such as UPSC, SSC and NTA.
    3. Penalties: Provides imprisonment and heavy fines for organised examination malpractice.
    4. Focus: Targets organised networks rather than genuine candidate errors.

    Why was it amended?

    • Exam-leak crisis: Repeated paper leaks and irregularities exposed weaknesses in examination governance.
    • Enforcement gaps: Strengthening was considered necessary after experience with the 2024 framework.
    • Public trust: Fair examinations are essential for merit-based recruitment and equal opportunity.

    What does the crisis reveal?

    • Aspiration-opportunity gap: Large numbers of candidates compete for limited government jobs.
    • Institutional trust deficit: Repeated leaks undermine confidence in recruitment institutions.
    • Governance challenge: Legal punishment alone cannot ensure examination integrity without secure technology, accountable agencies and speedy investigation.

    Prelims Pointers

    • Act: Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024
    • Ministry/Department: Department of Personnel and Training
    • Targets: Organised cheating, paper leaks and impersonation
    • Important distinction: The Act does not automatically cover all university or State board examinations unless the concerned government adopts the framework.

    “[2024, GS2, 15] What are the aims and objects of the recently passed and enforced, The Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024? Whether University/State Education Board examinations, too, are covered under the Act?”

    [2021] With reference to the Union Government, consider the following statements:
    1. N. Gopalaswamy Iyengar Committee suggested that a minister and a secretary be designated solely for pursuing the subject of administrative reform and promoting it.
    2. In 1970, the Department of Personnel was constituted on the recommendation of the Administrative Reforms Commission, 1966, and this was placed under the Prime Minister’s charge.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    [A] 1 only

    [B] 2 only

    [C] Both 1 and 2

    [D] Neither 1 nor 2

  • Parliament passes National Co-operative Development Corporation (Amendment) Bill, 2026

    Why in the News?

    Parliament passed the National Cooperative Development Corporation (Amendment) Bill, 2026, enabling the NCDC to provide loans and grants directly to cooperative societies.

    What is NCDC?

    • NCDC (National Cooperative Development Corporation) is a statutory corporation established under the National Cooperative Development Corporation Act, 1962.
    • Functions under the Ministry of Cooperation.
    • Promotes and finances cooperatives involved in production, processing, marketing, storage and trade of agricultural and allied produce.

    What does the Amendment Change?

    • Direct lending: NCDC can directly provide loans and grants to cooperative societies.
    • Wider coverage: Definition of foodstuffs expanded to include processed food and other food items notified by the Centre.
    • No additional budgetary outlay: The Bill does not provide for additional government financial assistance.

    Why is it Needed?

    • Faster flow of credit by removing intermediary delays.
    • Supports over 8 lakh cooperatives with more than 30 crore members.
    • Extends cooperative financing into value added food chains.

    Why are States Concerned?

    • Cooperation is largely a State subject.
    • Direct central lending may bypass State governments and registrars.
    • Raises concerns about cooperative federalism and centralisation.

    Key Challenges

    • Financial weakness and poor governance of PACS (Primary Agricultural Credit Societies).
    • Dual regulatory control.
    • Regional concentration of cooperatives.
    • Delayed elections and audits.
    • Limited professional management.
    • Centre State friction.

    Constitutional Framework

    • Entry 32, State List: Incorporation and regulation of cooperative societies within a State.
    • Article 43B: Promotes voluntary formation and autonomous functioning of cooperatives.
    • Part IXB, Articles 243ZH to 243ZT: Constitutional provisions on cooperatives.
    • Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002: Governs cooperatives operating across multiple States.

  • Ten years later, looking back and ahead at GeM

    Why in the News

    The Government e-Marketplace (GeM) completed 10 years, connecting around 1.37 lakh government buyers with 25 lakh sellers/service providers and achieving nearly ₹20 lakh crore cumulative Gross Merchandise Value (GMV).

    What is GeM?

    • GeM: Government e-Marketplace.
    • Launched on 9 August 2016.
    • A digital platform for government procurement of goods and services.
    • Replaced the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals (DGS&D).
    • Integrates product discovery, bidding, contract award and payment.

    How does GeM Improve Procurement?

    1. End-to-end digitisation: Covers the complete procurement cycle.
    2. Transparency: Creates an auditable digital trail.
    3. Reduced discretion: Limits face-to-face interaction and scope for favouritism.
    4. Single window: Simplifies registration and standardises procurement.
    5. Inclusion: Gives Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs), start-ups and women-led firms direct access to government buyers.

    What Does the Data Show?

    • Cumulative GMV: About ₹20 lakh crore.
    • Buyers: 1.37 lakh.
    • Sellers/service providers: 25 lakh.
    • Categories: 10,644 product and 350 service categories.
    • MSEs: Around 60% of orders by volume and over 45% of GMV.
    • Measured benefit: IIT Delhi study estimated ₹86,571.69 crore in benefits over the last three financial years through price and process efficiencies.

    What Problems Does GeM Address?

    • Reduces corruption and procurement discretion.
    • Improves Ease of Doing Business (EoDB) for suppliers.
    • Expands opportunities for MSMEs and start-ups.
    • Enables faster procurement.
    • Promotes competitive prices and better use of public funds.
    • Supports domestic manufacturing and Atmanirbhar Bharat.

    What is Public Procurement?

    • Public procurement is the process through which government bodies purchase goods, works and services using public funds.
    • Core principles: Transparency, Fair competition, Non-discrimination, Value for money, and Accountability

    Challenges

    1. Quality assurance: Risk of substandard products in a large digital catalogue.
    2. MSME payment delays: Delayed payments affect working capital.
    3. Bid rigging: Cartelisation can undermine competition.
    4. Digital divide: Smaller sellers may lack connectivity or digital skills.
    5. Grievance redress: Delays in resolving quality, delivery and payment disputes.
    6. Cybersecurity: Concentration of procurement data increases cyber risks.

    Back2Basics: GeM

    • Full form: Government e-Marketplace.
    • Launch: 9 August 2016.
    • Nodal Ministry: Ministry of Commerce and Industry.
    • Predecessor: DGS&D, Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals.
    • Purpose: Transparent and efficient government procurement.
    • Users: Government buyers, sellers and service providers.
    • Focus: Particularly beneficial for MSMEs, start-ups and women entrepreneurs.

    Government Initiatives

    • Public Procurement (Preference to Make in India) Order, 2017: Preference for domestically manufactured goods.
    • Public Procurement Policy for MSEs, 2012: Procurement preference for Micro and Small Enterprises.
    • Vivad se Vishwas for MSMEs: Relief mechanism for eligible MSME contractual disputes.
    • TReDS: Trade Receivables Discounting System, helping MSMEs obtain liquidity against receivables.

    [2025, GS2, 10 marks] E-governance projects have a built-in bias towards technology and back-end integration than user-centric designs. Examine.”

  • FIRs cannot be withdrawn, three routes for relief under BNSS

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has clarified that State Governments cannot simply withdraw or cancel FIRs against student protesters through executive orders. Criminal proceedings can end only through procedures provided under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

    What is a First Information Report (FIR) under the BNSS?

    • Definition: An FIR is the first written record of information relating to a cognizable offence received by the police.
    • Purpose: It sets the criminal investigation in motion under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
    • No Executive Power: A government cannot cancel or erase an FIR through an executive order. Only the subsequent criminal proceedings can be terminated through legal procedures.

    Route 1: Closure Report

    • Provision: If the police find insufficient evidence during investigation, they may submit a closure report before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 193 of BNSS.
    • Judicial Scrutiny: The Magistrate is not bound to accept the report and may order further investigation or take cognizance.
    • Key Case: Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra (1967) affirmed the Magistrate’s independent powers.

    Route 2: Withdrawal from Prosecution

    • Provision: Under Section 360 of BNSS, the Public Prosecutor, with the court’s consent, may withdraw from prosecution before judgment.
    • Independent Decision: The request must reflect the prosecutor’s own assessment and not merely government instructions.
    • Court’s Role: The court must ensure the withdrawal is in good faith and public interest.
    • Victim’s Rights: The victim must be given an opportunity to be heard.
    • Key Case: Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar (1986).

    Route 3: Quashing by the High Court

    • Provision: Section 528 of BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.
    • Direct Remedy: An accused person may directly approach the High Court for quashing of criminal proceedings.
    • Limited Use: Courts have consistently held that this power should be exercised sparingly, particularly while investigation is ongoing.

    Important Judicial Precedent

    • Baroda Dynamite Case (1980): The Supreme Court upheld withdrawal of prosecutions arising from the Emergency period.
    • Principle: Withdrawal may be justified where it promotes public peace, reconciliation and good governance, provided legal safeguards are followed.

  • Parliamentary panel questions Meta and threatens Section 79 safe harbour

    Why in the News?

    The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology questioned Meta over the temporary removal of the Prime Minister’s Facebook post and warned of withdrawing safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

    What is Section 79?

    • Grants safe harbour protection to intermediaries, shielding them from liability for third-party content.
    • Applies only if intermediaries:
      • Follow due diligence requirements.
      • Do not create or modify user content.
      • Comply with lawful government or court directions.

    Who is an Intermediary?

    • An entity that stores or transmits third-party content, such as Social media platforms, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and Search engines
    • Hosts user-generated content without being its author.

    Key Findings

    • A Prime Ministerial Facebook post was temporarily restricted.
    • The Parliamentary Committee sought:
      • An explanation and audit trail from Meta.
      • Assurance against future recurrence.
    • The issue revived the debate on intermediary liability and platform accountability.

    Challenges

    • Withdrawal of safe harbour may encourage excessive content removal.
    • Risks chilling free speech and legitimate dissent.
    • Platforms cannot realistically pre-screen billions of posts.
    • Balancing accountability with freedom of expression remains difficult.

    Back2Basics

    • Information Technology Act, 2000: Governs cyber laws and intermediary liability in India.
    • IT Rules, 2021: Prescribe due diligence obligations for intermediaries.
    • Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): Supreme Court held that content takedown under Section 79 generally requires a court order or government notification.

    [2017] In India, it is legally mandatory for which of the following to report on cyber security incidents?

    1. Service providers

    2. Data Centres

    3. Body corporate.

    Select the correct answer using the code given below:

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 1 and 2 only

    (c) 3 only

    (d) 1, 2 and 3.

  • Proof of life: reworking the law on delayed birth and death registration

    Why in the News?

    The Lok Sabha passed the Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Bill, 2026, amending the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. It requires a Judicial Magistrate’s order for registration of births or deaths delayed by more than two years.

    Key Provisions

    • Judicial Approval: Delayed registration beyond 2 years requires approval from a Judicial Magistrate.
    • Existing Process Retained: Delays up to 2 years continue to require approval from an Executive Magistrate.
    • Objective: Strengthen verification and prevent fraudulent birth or death registrations.

    Why was the Amendment Needed?

    • The 2023 amendment made the birth certificate the primary proof of date and place of birth for: School admissions, Passports, Aadhaar, Voter rolls, Driving licences, and Government jobs
    • Higher importance of birth certificates increased the risk of fraudulent registrations.

    Significance

    • Enhances authenticity of delayed registrations.
    • Supports reliable digital civil registration records.
    • Reduces misuse of birth certificates for identity fraud.

    Challenges

    • Judicial process may increase costs and delays for genuine applicants.
    • Remote and vulnerable populations may face greater difficulty.
    • Adds workload to the lower judiciary.
    • No clear evidence supporting the two-year threshold.

    Back2Basics

    • Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969: Makes registration of every birth and death compulsory.
    • Registrar General of India (RGI): Nodal authority under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
    • Concurrent List: Both Parliament and State Legislatures can legislate on registration.
    • 2023 Amendment: Birth certificate became the primary document for proving date and place of birth.

    [2018] Consider the following statements:
    1.Aadhaar can be used as proof of citizenship and domicile.
    2.Once issued, the Aadhaar number cannot be deactivated or omitted by the issuing authority.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    [A] 1 only

    [B] 2 only

    [C] Both 1 and 2

    [D] Neither 1 nor 2

  • Activists raise alarm over PM CARES denial of access to audit statements

    Why in the News

    The Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations (PM CARES) Fund has not published audited financial statements for the last three financial years. The government maintains that the trust is not a “public authority” under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 and is therefore not bound by its disclosure requirements. Activists argue that the fund has all the characteristics of a public body. They point out that the Prime Minister is its Chairperson, Union Ministers serve as ex officio trustees, and government employees have contributed from their salaries. Yet, the fund remains outside the RTI Act, parliamentary scrutiny, and audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).


    What is the PM CARES Fund?

    1. Establishment: Set up in March 2020 and registered as a public charitable trust under the Registration Act, 1908, with its trust deed registered in New Delhi on 27 March 2020, to support relief during public health emergencies and other disasters.
    2. Composition: The Prime Minister serves as ex officio Chairperson, and the Union Ministers of Defence, Home Affairs and Finance serve as ex officio trustees.
    3. Funding: Funded entirely through voluntary contributions from individuals and organisations, with the government stating it receives no budgetary support.
    4. Tax and foreign funding benefits: Donations qualify for a 100% deduction under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, count as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure under the Companies Act, 2013, and the fund holds an exemption under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) to receive donations from overseas.

    What financial disclosure has the fund made?

    1. Last published statement: The last publicly available audited statement, for financial year 2022 23, showed an opening balance of Rs 5,415.65 crore, voluntary contributions of Rs 909.64 crore, total receipts of Rs 6,723.07 crore, total payments of Rs 439.38 crore, and a closing balance of Rs 6,283.68 crore as of 31 March 2023.
    2. Disclosure gap: Only the audited statements for 2019 20, 2020 21, 2021 22 and 2022 23 are available on the fund’s website, leaving the last three financial years without any published audit.
    3. Primary use: The fund has primarily financed India’s COVID 19 response and emergency health infrastructure.

    Why does the government’s “not a public authority” position sit uneasily with the fund’s structure?

    1. Government’s legal position: The government maintains the trust is not a public authority under the RTI Act, and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs retrospectively amended the relevant Companies Act rules to support this position.
    2. Activists’ counter: Activists argue the fund was presented as set up by the Union government, carries the sanctity of the Prime Minister’s office as chairperson, and drew contributions from government employees’ salaries, features that make it appear to be a public authority in substance.
    3. The accountability gap: The fund remains outside the RTI Act’s disclosure obligations, outside parliamentary scrutiny, and outside audit by the CAG, the three principal mechanisms that apply to ordinary government spending.

    What are the challenges to ensuring transparency in the PM CARES Fund?

    1. A named precedent: Activists cite the electoral bonds case, where sustained anonymity in political funding enabled quid pro quo arrangements between donors and the government, before the Supreme Court struck the scheme down in February 2024 for violating the right to information.
    2. No independent constitutional audit: Without CAG audit, no independent constitutional auditor verifies how contributions, including those from government employees’ salaries, are spent.
    3. Retrospective rule change: The Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ retrospective amendment to Companies Act rules narrows the scope for legal challenge based on the fund’s original design.
    4. CSR channel scrutiny: Because CSR contributions to PM CARES count toward companies’ mandatory CSR spending obligations, opacity in fund utilisation also affects corporate accountability for those obligations.
    5. No periodic review clause: Unlike time bound government schemes, PM CARES has no periodic legislative or parliamentary review clause forcing disclosure at fixed intervals.

    Conclusion

    The PM CARES Fund’s structure gives it the outward markers of a public authority, a Prime Minister led chairpersonship, ministerial trustees and salary contributions from government employees, while its legal classification as a private trust keeps it outside the RTI Act, parliamentary scrutiny and CAG audit. Three consecutive years without a published audited statement leave activists’ comparison to the electoral bonds case as the operative risk to track. Whether the fund publishes its pending audits or its RTI exempt status changes remains the open question.

    Back2Basics:

    Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India

    1. Constitutional basis: The CAG is a constitutional authority under Articles 148 to 151 of the Constitution, appointed by the President.
    2. Governing law: Its powers and duties are laid out in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971.
    3. Mandate: Audits all receipts and expenditure of the Union and state governments, including bodies substantially financed by government grants, and reports findings for placement before the legislature.
    4. Tenure and independence: Holds office for six years or until age 65, whichever is earlier, and can be removed only through a process similar to a Supreme Court judge’s removal.
    5. Relevance here: PM CARES Fund’s exclusion from CAG audit means its accounts face no scrutiny from this constitutional auditor, unlike most bodies with government backed establishment.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2020] “Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act will have profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission”. Discuss.

    Linkage: This PYQ tests the role of the RTI Act in promoting transparency and accountability in public institutions.The article examines the PM CARES Fund’s exemption from the RTI Act and the resulting concerns over public accountability.

  • CPGRAMS Report for States/UTs (June 2026)

    Why in News?

    The Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DARPG) released the 47th monthly report on the Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) for States/UTs for June 2026.

    Key Highlights

    • Public Grievances Received: 96,190
    • Grievances Redressed: 93,170
    • Pending Cases (30 June 2026): 2,16,032
    • 23 States/UTs have over 1,000 pending grievances.
    • Uttar Pradesh recorded the highest disposals (31,460), followed by Maharashtra (7,619).

    CPGRAMS

    • CPGRAMS is an online grievance redress platform of the Government of India.
    • Developed and monitored by DARPG.
    • Enables citizens to submit and track grievances against government departments.
    • Integrated with over 5 lakh Common Service Centres (CSCs) through 2.5 lakh Village Level Entrepreneurs (VLEs).

    Sevottam Scheme

    • Capacity-building initiative to improve public service delivery and grievance redress.
    • FY 2022-23 to FY 2026-27 (till June): 1,196 training programmes conducted. Around 39,509 officers trained.

    Other Highlights

    • 83,544 new users registered on CPGRAMS in June 2026.
    • Feedback Call Centre collected 75,318 feedbacks, including 33,092 from States/UTs.
    • 6,262 grievances were registered through CSCs.
    • A dedicated Review Module for senior-level monitoring has been operational since 6 June 2025.

    Prelims Facts

    • DARPG: Department under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.
    • CPGRAMS: National online portal for public grievance redressal.
    • Sevottam Scheme: Focuses on improving service delivery and grievance redress mechanisms in government.

    [2021] With reference to the Union Government, consider the following statements:
    1. N. Gopalaswamy Iyengar Committee suggested that a minister and a secretary be designated solely for pursuing the subject of administrative reform and promoting it.
    2. In 1970, the Department of Personnel was constituted on the recommendation of the Administrative Reforms Commission, 1966, and this was placed under the Prime Minister’s charge.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    [A] 1 only

    [B] 2 only

    [C] Both 1 and 2

    [D] Neither 1 nor 2

  • NCRB data shows chronic pendency under the National Honour Act, even as government moves to add Vande Mataram

    Why in the News?

    National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data spanning 2014 to 2024 on the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 shows pendency above 90% and a conviction rate below 16%. The government is simultaneously pushing an amendment to criminalise insult to Vande Mataram on par with the national anthem, despite the existing law’s poor enforcement record.

    What is the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971?

    1. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 is an Indian law that bans the burning, mutilation, destruction, or disrespect of the national flag, the Constitution, and the national anthem.

    Key Rules and Penalties

    1. National Flag and Constitution: Section 2 prohibits burning, damaging, defacing, or showing disrespect to the flag or Constitution in any public place.
    2. National Anthem: Section 3 penalizes anyone who stops people from singing the national anthem or creates a disturbance during it.
    3. Punishment: Violations are punishable by up to three years in prison, a fine, or both. Repeat offenders face a minimum prison term of one year.
    4. Exceptions: Peaceful or lawful criticism aimed at changing or amending the Constitution or flag does not count as a crime

    Why does the enforcement record complicate the case for expanding the law?

    1. Pendency scale: Over 90% of cases registered under the Act between 2014 and 2024 remain pending, indicating a chronic backlog rather than an occasional delay.
    2. Low conviction: A conviction rate below 16% suggests weak evidentiary standards, prosecutorial capacity constraints, or both, in cases actually brought to trial.
    3. Expansion without fixing enforcement: Adding Vande Mataram to the Act’s protected symbols expands what the law covers without addressing why the existing provisions on the national anthem and flag are so poorly enforced.
    4. Symbolic versus functional legislation: A law with a sub-16% conviction rate functions more as a symbolic statement of state intent than as an operative deterrent.

    Conclusion

    The government’s push to expand the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 proceeds without addressing why the existing law convicts fewer than one in six prosecuted cases. Enforcement capacity, not statutory scope, is the constraint the amendment leaves unaddressed.

      Back2Basics

      The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026:

      1. It is a legislative proposal introduced in the Rajya Sabha on July 24, 2026. It amends the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, to extend statutory protection to India’s national song, Vande Mataram.

      Key Provisions

      1. Inclusion of the National Song: Amends Section 3 of the 1971 Act to place Vande Mataram under the same legal umbrella as the national anthem, Jana Gana Mana.
      2. Offenses Covered: Criminalizes intentionally preventing the singing of the national song or causing a disturbance at an assembly engaged in its rendition.
      3. Penalties: Proposes imprisonment for up to three years, a monetary fine, or both for first-time offenders, and a mandatory minimum of one year in prison for subsequent convictions