💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (August Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Various Acts

  • Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026 makes obstructing Vande Mataram an offence

    Why in the News

    Parliament passed the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026 in the recently concluded Monsoon Session, making it an offence to attempt to stop or prevent the singing or playing of Vande Mataram. The amendment lands on a live political dispute over whether public rendition may be confined to the first two stanzas, a practice the principal Opposition party traces to a 1937 Congress Working Committee resolution and the ruling party contests against the Constituent Assembly declaration of 24 January 1950. A statute now attaches criminal liability to conduct around a symbol whose status rests on a Presidential declaration in the Constituent Assembly rather than on any article of the Constitution.

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

    1. Purpose: The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 penalises insults to India’s national symbols, and is the parent statute the 2026 amendment modifies.
    2. Protection of the Flag and the Constitution: Section 2 penalises burning, mutilating, defacing, defiling, disfiguring, destroying or showing contempt to the Indian National Flag or the Constitution of India.
    3. Protection of the National Anthem: Section 3 penalises intentionally preventing the singing of the National Anthem or causing disturbance to any assembly engaged in singing it.
    4. Punishment: Contravention attracts imprisonment of up to three years, or a fine, or both.
    5. Disqualification for repeat offenders: Section 3A provides for disqualification from contesting elections to Parliament and State legislatures for a specified period on a second or subsequent conviction.
    6. Earlier amendments: The Act has been amended previously, including in 2003 to extend the prohibition on improper use of the Flag and in 2005 to permit specified respectful uses.

    What does the 2026 Amendment change?

    1. New offence created: The amendment makes it an offence to attempt to stop or prevent the singing or playing of Vande Mataram.
    2. Extension of the Section 3 principle to the national song: The parent Act protected the National Anthem from obstruction, and the amendment extends comparable protection to the national song.
    3. Trigger for the amendment: The controversy over the national song began after Parliament passed the amendment in the recently concluded Monsoon Session.
    4. The conduct targeted is obstruction, not abstention: The offence attaches to attempts to stop or prevent rendition, which distinguishes it from a duty to sing.

    What other provisions of the parent framework does the amendment sit alongside?

    1. The Flag Code of India, 2002: Governs display and use of the National Flag, and was amended in 2021 to permit polyester and machine made flags and in 2022 to permit display by night.
    2. The Orders relating to the National Anthem of India: Issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, they specify the occasions for the full and short versions and the playing time of 52 seconds.
    3. The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950: Bars improper commercial and professional use of specified names and emblems, including the National Flag.
    4. The State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005: Regulates use of the State Emblem, adapted from the Lion Capital of Ashoka at Sarnath.
    5. No parallel protection exists for the national song in the parent Act: Before this amendment, the 1971 Act protected the Flag, the Constitution and the National Anthem, but not Vande Mataram.

    Why does the two stanza convention exist?

    1. The 1937 resolution: The Congress Working Committee passed a resolution in 1937 on the public rendition of the national song.
    2. The stated reason: Leading figures of the freedom movement, including Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore, backed limiting public rendition to the first two stanzas to avoid verses containing specific religious imagery.
    3. Continuity claimed: The Congress president stated that the version sung was the same one sung by Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
    4. The 90 year framing: The party position is that it has continued a practice in place for 90 years, and that a governing party’s preference does not by itself set a national standard.
    5. State units following the same line: The Karnataka unit stated that only the first two stanzas would be sung at its programmes, in keeping with existing practice.
    6. The counter allegation: The ruling party alleged that the Congress entered into a pact with the Muslim League in 1936-37, under whose pressure only two stanzas were to be sung.

    What did the Constituent Assembly decide on 24 January 1950?

    1. The declaration: Dr Rajendra Prasad, as President of the Constituent Assembly, declared on 24 January 1950 that Jana Gana Mana would be the National Anthem and Vande Mataram the national song.
    2. Equal honour, unequal legal treatment: The declaration accorded the national song honour equal to the anthem, without conferring on it the same statutory protection the anthem later received in 1971.
    3. The source of authority: The status of both symbols rests on this declaration and subsequent executive practice, not on any article of the Constitution.
    4. Historical lineage invoked: The contributions of Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Rabindranath Tagore and Bal Gangadhar Tilak were recalled, with the song described as a major source of inspiration during the freedom struggle.
    5. The political point pressed: The ruling party emphasised that the person who made the declaration was himself a Congress member and later the President of India.
    6. The broader charge: The Congress was accused of compromising national symbols and the core values of its own freedom movement.

    Why does criminalising obstruction of a national song raise a free speech question?

    1. The anthem precedent cuts both ways: Section 3 of the 1971 Act penalises preventing the singing of the anthem, and the Supreme Court has separately held that respectful silence is not an offence.
    2. Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, 1986: The Court held that expelling students who stood respectfully but did not sing the anthem violated Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25.
    3. The definitional problem of attempt: An offence framed around an attempt to stop or prevent rendition turns on intention, which is inferred from conduct at a charged political event.
    4. Partial rendition is not obstruction: Singing two stanzas of a five stanza song is a choice about what to sing, distinct from preventing others from singing.
    5. Article 19(2) is the test: Any restriction must fall within the enumerated grounds, and the sustainability of this offence depends on locating it within public order or decency.
    6. The unresolved consequence: The dispute has moved from a convention about rendition into a question about who can be prosecuted at a public event, without the constitutional status of the national song itself being settled.

    Challenges to enforcing the amended Act

    1. Proving intention to obstruct: Distinguishing deliberate obstruction from ordinary disorder at a crowded event is evidentially difficult, e.g. complaints under Section 3 of the 1971 Act arising from cinema hall incidents have frequently collapsed for want of proof of intent.
    2. Risk of politically motivated complaints: A criminal provision attached to a contested symbol invites first information reports as a campaign instrument, e.g. the current dispute arose from rendition at an Independence Day event at a party headquarters and a subsequent event in Goa.
    3. Conflict with the respectful silence doctrine: Enforcement can slide from obstruction into compelled participation, e.g. Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, 1986 protected students who declined to sing while standing in respect.
    4. No settled authoritative text or duration: Unlike the anthem, the national song has no notified official version or playing time, e.g. the Orders relating to the National Anthem fix a playing time of 52 seconds with no counterpart for Vande Mataram.
    5. Judicial reversal risk from over enforcement: Courts have withdrawn mandatory rendition directions when enforcement produced harassment, e.g. the 2016 direction making the anthem compulsory in cinema halls was made optional in 2018.
    6. Federal enforcement variation: Police being a State subject, prosecution practice will differ across States, e.g. identical conduct at party events in different States can attract different responses.

    Conclusion

    The amendment converts a ninety year old convention about how much of a national song is sung in public into a matter capable of criminal prosecution, without resolving the underlying question of what legal status the national song holds. The 1971 Act protected the Flag, the Constitution and the National Anthem because each has a notified form, and the national song has none, so the offence rests on a symbol defined only by the Constituent Assembly declaration of 24 January 1950. The stage reached is that Parliament passed the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026 in the recently concluded Monsoon Session. The source names no commencement date, rules or further milestone, so the next step on the record is notification bringing the amendment into force.

  • India’s Extradition Push: States Told to Prepare for Fugitive Returns

    Why in the News

    The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has asked all States and Union Territories to process extradition requests for fugitives abroad without delay, and to develop prison facilities in central jails that meet international standards. The instruction locates the failure inside India’s own investigating agencies rather than only in foreign courts. India has brought back 274 fugitives from 36 countries since 2021.

    What is extradition?

    1. About: Extradition is the formal surrender of a person by one state to another for trial or for serving a sentence in the requesting state.
    2. Legal basis: It operates through the Extradition Act, 1962 read with a bilateral treaty or a notified arrangement with the country concerned.
    3. Core conditions: The offence must be punishable in both countries, and the person tried only for the offence for which surrender was granted.
    4. What decides the outcome: The foreign court applies its own domestic law and human rights obligations, not the requesting state’s assessment of the case.

    What is an Interpol Red Notice?

    1. About: A request to law enforcement worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition, surrender or similar legal action.
    2. Its legal weight: It is not an international arrest warrant, and each country decides what force to give it under its own law.

    What is an Interpol Blue Notice?

    1. About: A request to collect additional information about a person’s identity, location or activities in relation to a criminal investigation.
    2. Why conversion matters: A Blue Notice does not support arrest, so it must be converted into a Red Notice before extradition action becomes possible.

    What is a provisional arrest request?

    1. About: An urgent request to a foreign state to arrest a located fugitive before the full extradition documentation is submitted.
    2. The time limit: It holds the person only for a fixed period, after which the formal extradition request must arrive or the person is released.

    What has the Home Ministry directed the States to do?

    1. Timely processing: States and Union Territories must ensure timely processing of extradition requests for fugitives abroad.
    2. Dossiers in advance: All States, Union Territories and law enforcement agencies must prepare extradition dossiers in advance in every case where an Interpol Red Notice has been issued.
    3. Why in advance: The prepared dossier allows a provisional arrest or extradition request to be sent immediately once a fugitive is located or arrested abroad.
    4. Prison upgrades: Central jails must develop prison facilities that meet international standards, and the status of such facilities has been sought from every State.
    5. Case review: All pending extradition matters must be reviewed, and cases unsuitable for extradition identified or proposed for withdrawal.
    6. Extradition cells: The review meeting discussed setting up extradition cells with sufficient staff and converting Interpol Blue Notices into Red Notices.

    Why do extradition requests fail on India’s own side?

    1. The observed pattern: Even after fugitives are traced or arrested abroad on the basis of Interpol notices, state police or investigating agencies delay sending provisional arrest or formal extradition requests to the ministry.
    2. Who owns the document: Preparing a legally sound extradition request is primarily the responsibility of the investigating agency or state police concerned.
    3. Consequence one, release: If the formal request does not arrive within the stipulated time, the fugitive may be released.
    4. Consequence two, lapse: The period of provisional arrest lapses, ending the legal basis for custody.
    5. Consequence three, flight: The person may flee that foreign jurisdiction, making tracing and arrest again extremely difficult.
    6. Why the deadline binds: Foreign authorities are bound by their own domestic laws and treaty obligations and cannot extend custody to accommodate Indian delay.

    Which agencies must coordinate for a single extradition?

    1. The investigating agency or state police: Builds the case file and drafts the legally sound request.
    2. The Central Bureau of Investigation: Routes the matter through Interpol, since it is India’s National Central Bureau.
    3. The Ministry of Home Affairs: Processes and forwards the request as the nodal ministry.
    4. The Ministry of External Affairs: Transmits the request through diplomatic channels.
    5. The Indian mission concerned: Pursues the request with the host government and its courts.
    6. The failure point: A chain of five actors means one slow link defeats the entire request, which is what the advisory targets.

    Why do prison conditions decide extradition outcomes abroad?

    1. The foreign test: Courts in requested states assess whether surrender would expose the person to treatment violating their own human rights obligations.
    2. What is examined: Cell space, overcrowding, medical care, protection from violence and access to legal remedies in the specific jail proposed.
    3. The Indian response so far: Assurances have been offered on a case by case basis, including video evidence of designated barracks.
    4. Why the directive follows: Requiring central jails to meet international standards converts a case by case assurance into a standing capability.
    5. The linked demand: The ministry has sought updated details on the status of internationally compliant prison facilities from every State.

    Why has a withdrawal review been ordered?

    1. Reluctance on certain cases: Some States and agencies have been reluctant to proceed with extradition in matrimonial disputes and other cases.
    2. Their reasoning: Such cases, in their assessment, may not meet the legal threshold of an extraditable offence.
    3. The reporting gap: Those decisions were not communicated to the ministry, leaving pending cases on the books without status.
    4. The correction: Cases unsuitable for extradition must now be identified or formally proposed for withdrawal, so effort concentrates on viable requests.

    Challenges to India’s Extradition Framework

    1. Delay at the origin of the request: The window created by a foreign arrest closes before the paperwork arrives. e.g. an expired provisional arrest period releases the fugitive with no fresh basis for custody.
    2. Prison conditions as a refusal ground: Foreign courts refuse surrender on human rights grounds relating to Indian jails. e.g. the United Kingdom High Court allowed an appeal against extradition in a tax and money laundering case in 2025 on prison conditions and treatment grounds.
    3. Precedent of outright refusal: A refusal on custodial treatment grounds can end a case permanently. e.g. Denmark declined to extradite the principal accused in the Purulia arms drop case, citing risk of ill treatment.
    4. Conditions attached to successful surrender: Assurances given to secure extradition bind Indian courts afterwards. e.g. the assurance given to Portugal limited the sentence in the case of a fugitive returned in 2005 to 25 years and excluded the death penalty.
    5. Absence of a treaty with key jurisdictions: Fugitives shelter in states where India has no extradition treaty, only an arrangement or none at all. e.g. requests to jurisdictions without treaty coverage depend entirely on reciprocity and domestic discretion.
    6. Capacity inside state police: Most state forces have no officer trained in drafting extradition documentation. e.g. the ministry has had to direct the creation of dedicated extradition cells with sufficient staff.
    7. Threshold misjudgement: Requests are pursued in cases foreign courts will not accept as extraditable. e.g. matrimonial dispute cases that States themselves assess as below the legal threshold.
    8. Notice type mismatch: A person is tracked on a notice that gives no power of arrest. e.g. Blue Notices pending conversion into Red Notices leave a located fugitive untouchable.

    Conclusion

    The advisory reframes extradition failure as a domestic sequencing problem, since the legal window opened by a foreign arrest is lost when the investigating agency’s dossier is not ready. India has brought back 274 fugitives from 36 countries since 2021, and the ministry now wants dossiers prepared the moment a Red Notice issues, dedicated extradition cells, and central jails built to international standards so that prison conditions stop functioning as a refusal ground. States must next report the status of compliant prison facilities and identify cases proposed for withdrawal from extradition proceedings.

  • Supreme Court clarifies scope of police custody under Section 187(2) BNSS

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court held in The State of Andhra Pradesh vs Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju that Section 187(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 enlarges the window during which police custody may be sought. The ruling has exposed the difference between the new code and the old regime, under which police custody was confined to the first 15 days of remand alone. Police custody is now available in parts, though in aggregate not exceeding 15 days, during the first 40 or 60 days of detention.

    What is Section 187(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?

    1. Governing provision: Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the criminal procedure code that replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, governs the detention of an accused when investigation cannot be completed in 24 hours.
    2. Enlarged window: Under Section 187(2), a magistrate may authorise detention not exceeding 15 days in the whole, or in parts, at any time during the initial 40 days or 60 days of a total detention period of 60 or 90 days.

    What is default bail?

    1. Definition: Where investigation is not completed within the stipulated period, the accused becomes entitled to release, widely known as default bail.
    2. Time limits under Section 187(3): Judicial detention may extend up to 90 days for offences punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment of 10 years or more, and up to 60 days for any other offence.

    What is the current status of pre-trial custody rights in India?

    1. Twenty four hour rule: Section 58 of the BNSS provides that a person arrested without warrant cannot be detained beyond 24 hours without a magistrate’s authorisation under Section 187.
    2. Fifteen day cap on police custody: Police custody remains capped at 15 days in aggregate, but may now be spread across the early investigation period rather than the first 15 days alone.
    3. Right to counsel: Section 38 of the BNSS entitles an arrested person to meet an advocate of choice during interrogation, though not throughout interrogation.
    4. Recording safeguard: Audio visual recording of the actual interrogation and of any discovery or recovery satisfies the transparency requirement.

    Constitutional provisions related to arrest and detention:

    1. Article 22(1): Guarantees the right to be informed of grounds of arrest and to consult a legal practitioner of choice.
    2. Article 22(2): Requires production before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.
    3. Article 21: Protects life and personal liberty, permitting deprivation only by a just, fair and reasonable procedure established by law.
    4. Article 20(3): Protects against self incrimination, relevant to the presence of counsel during interrogation.

    What did the Supreme Court hold?

    1. No absolute outer limit: A magistrate cannot place an absolute and non extendable outer limit on custody, since such a limit forecloses recourse to Section 187(2) of the BNSS.
    2. Purpose of the change: The enlarged window is intended to meet situations where fresh facts, discoveries or leads emerge during the course of investigation.
    3. Additional custody granted: The Court permitted 7 days of additional police custody so that the total police remand would not exceed 15 days.
    4. Facts of the case: In a custodial death case the victim’s body remained untraced, the original CCTV hard disks were yet to be discovered, and recoveries under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam were imminent.

    How does the new remand window differ from the old code?

    1. Old Section 167 CrPC: Detention in police custody could not be granted beyond the initial 15 days in the whole under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
    2. Alteration within the window: Even under the old code, during the first 15 days a magistrate could alter custody from judicial to police and back.
    3. New flexibility: Under the BNSS police custody may be sought in parts across the first 40 or 60 days, keeping the aggregate at 15 days.

    What did the Court hold on the presence of an advocate?

    1. Not continuous: Section 38 does not contemplate the continuous, ongoing physical presence of an advocate for the entirety of each interrogation session.
    2. Line of sight: The advocate may remain present within the site of interrogation from where he can see the accused, but not throughout the questioning.
    3. Recording over escort videography: Instead of uninterrupted videography of the accused in transit, audio visual recording of the interrogation and of any recovery meets the requirement.

    What are the major debates surrounding the enlarged custody window?

    1. Liberty versus investigation: Spreading police custody across 40 or 60 days risks repeated custodial spells, weighed against the need to pursue late emerging leads.
    2. Magistrate’s discretion: The ruling limits a magistrate’s power to foreclose future custody, raising the question of how liberty is protected during the extended window.
    3. Counsel access: The line of sight standard for the advocate leaves open how effectively the right against coercion is protected during interrogation.

    Way Forward:

    1. Reasoned remand orders: Require magistrates to record specific reasons linking each spell of police custody to investigative need.
    2. Guard against repeat custody: Frame guidelines to prevent the enlarged window becoming a route to successive custodial spells.
    3. Effective counsel access: Clarify practical standards for an advocate’s presence to protect against coercion.
    4. Mandatory recording compliance: Ensure audio visual recording of interrogation and recovery is uniformly implemented and preserved.
    5. Judicial training: Orient magistrates on the new remand architecture to balance liberty with investigation.

    Conclusion:

    The Court has clarified that police custody under the BNSS is capped at 15 days in aggregate but may be sought in parts through the first 40 or 60 days of investigation, not the first 15 days alone. The ruling reflects the legislative intent to accommodate fresh discoveries during a probe. The interpretation now governs how magistrates authorise and structure police remand under the new code.

    Back2Basics:

    BNSS, BNS and BSA

    1. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as the substantive criminal law.
    2. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 governing procedure, arrest, investigation and trial.
    3. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 governing admissibility of evidence.
    4. Effective date: The three codes came into force on 1 July 2024.
    5. Zero FIR and e-FIR: The BNSS recognises registration of a First Information Report irrespective of jurisdiction and enables electronic reporting.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2026] Which of the following statements about a Zero First Information Report (Zero FIR) under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is/are correct?

    1. A Zero FIR can be lodged at a police station, even though the place of commission of a cognizable/non-cognizable offence is outside the territorial jurisdiction of that police station. 2. The Officer-in-Charge of the police station where a Zero FIR has been lodged may, with the permission of the competent authority, initiate a preliminary enquiry. 3. Under Zero FIR, it is obligatory for the informant to furnish information electronically.

    (a) 1 and 2 (b) 2 and 3 (c) 1 and 3 (d) 1 only

    Answer: D

  • Consider the following statements

    Consider the following statements:
    As per the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central (Amendment) Rules, 2018
    1. if rules for fixed-term employment are implemented, it becomes easier for the firms/companies to layoff workers.
    2. no notice of termination of employment shall be necessary in the case of temporary workman.

    Which of the statements given above is / are correct?

  • With reference to India, consider the following statements

    With reference to India, consider the following statements:

    1.When a prisoner makes out a sufficient case, parole cannot be denied to such a prisoner because it becomes a matter of his/her right.
    2.State Governments have their own Prisoners Release on Parole Rules.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  • Consider the following statements

    Consider the following statements :
    Statement-I :
    In India, prisons are managed by State Governments with their own rules and regulations for the day-to-day administration of prisons.
    Statement-II:
    In India, prisons are governed by the Prisons Act, 1894 which expressly kept the subject of prisons in the control of Provincial Governments.
    Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

  • With reference to India, consider the following pairs

    With reference to India, consider the following pairs:
    Action: The Act under which it is covered
    1. Unauthorized wearing of police or military uniforms : The Official Secrets Act, 1923
    2. Knowingly misleading or otherwise interfering with a police officer or military officer when engaged in their duties : The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
    3. Celebratory gunfire which can endanger the personal safety of others : The Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019
    How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

  • In India, it is legally mandatory for which of the following to report on cyber security incidents

    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:

  • Consider the following statements in respect of the National Flag of India according to the Flag Code of India, 2002

    Consider the following statements in respect of the National Flag of India according to the Flag Code of India, 2002:
    Statement-I:
    One of the standard sizes of the National Flag of India is 600 mm × 400 mm.
    Statement-II:
    The ratio of the length to the height (width) of the Flag shall be 3 : 2.
    Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?