Advocates Kunal Vinayak and Shubh Sharma submitted the complaint to Delhi Police on August 16, seeking registration of a First Information Report after examination of the applicable law. The allegations relate to events at the All India Congress Committee headquarters, Indira Bhawan, on August 15, where Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge hoisted the national flag in the presence of senior party leaders.
The complaint relies on video footage showing Sonia Gandhi making gestures and speaking to people around her as the rendition of Vande Mataram continued beyond its opening portion. The complainants have argued that her conduct appeared to indicate an objection to the continuation of the song, while acknowledging that her precise intention would require investigation.
Rahul Gandhi has also been named over another part of the footage. The complaint alleges that he can be heard saying words interpreted as “We are not singing Vande Mataram” while the rendition was under way. It asks investigators to establish the context, meaning and intention behind the statement rather than treating the circulated video alone as conclusive evidence.
Congress has rejected the allegation that its leaders attempted to stop the song. Party general secretary Jairam Ramesh said Sonia Gandhi’s gestures were connected with arranging a chair for Kharge, who had been standing for an extended period, and maintained that the complete rendition of Vande Mataram went ahead.
The competing interpretations of the footage have become central to the controversy. Images from the ceremony show Sonia Gandhi communicating with Kharge and others, while Rahul Gandhi’s attention is also drawn towards the exchange. The video does not by itself establish the intention attributed to the gestures, leaving that question at the centre of both the political dispute and the request for a police inquiry.
The complaint also raises a legal question because it refers to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Bill, 2026, which proposes extending statutory protection now associated with the National Anthem to the National Song. The complainants have specifically asked police to determine the legal status and commencement of the proposed amendment before deciding which provisions, if any, could apply to the August 15 episode.
Under the proposal cited in the complaint, intentionally preventing the singing of the National Song or disturbing an assembly engaged in singing it could attract imprisonment of up to three years, a fine, or both. The existing Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, contains provisions concerning deliberate prevention of the National Anthem or disturbance of an assembly singing it.
The Delhi complaint follows a broader political offensive over the episode. BJP representatives also approached police in Bengaluru and Mangaluru with complaints against Sonia Gandhi, while senior party figures demanded an apology over what they described as disrespect towards a national symbol. Police in Karnataka were seeking legal opinion before deciding whether the allegations warranted registration of cases.
Home Minister Amit Shah intensified the attack during a public programme in Rajasthan, accusing the Congress of attempting to interrupt Vande Mataram and linking the episode to the party’s political approach towards questions of nationalism. Congress responded by rejecting the accusation and arguing that the controversy was being used to divert attention from other political issues.
The dispute has also drawn intervention from Sumitro Chatterjee, a BJP legislator and descendant of Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, who wrote Vande Mataram. He demanded an unconditional apology from Sonia Gandhi, adding a historical dimension to a confrontation already moving from social-media exchanges and political statements into police complaints.
(IPA Service)
