Q2 · UPPSC current affairs · 23 September 2026 · News · Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act Constitutional Challenge

← Q1 Q3 →

With reference to the freedom of speech and expression and judicial interpretations of national symbols, consider the following:The Supreme Court ruling in the Bijoe Emmanuel Case (1986) established that:

A standing respectfully during the National Anthem without singing is protected under Article 25.
B singing the National Anthem compulsorily is an absolute requirement under Article 19(1)(a) with no exceptions.
C the National Anthem can only be played in cinema halls as mandated by executive notifications of the Ministry of Culture.
D Article 51A overrides all Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution.

Correct answer: (a) standing respectfully during the National Anthem without singing is protected under Article 25.

Explanation

Option A is correct because the Supreme Court held in the Bijoe Emmanuel Case (1986) that standing respectfully during the National Anthem without singing does not violate the law and is protected under freedom of religion and conscience (Article 25). Options B, C, and D are factually incorrect and misrepresent constitutional jurisprudence.

Same topic · past papers

UPSC has asked this before

These previous-year questions sit on the same topic. Open one to practise the earlier ask.

  1. 2023 · Q11 · UPPGS

    Consider the following statements concerning the powers of the Supreme Court to issue certain writs to stop violation of Fundamental Rights: (1) The Supreme Court has power to issue writs like Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto and Certiorari which are appropriate for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. (2) Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise, within its jurisdiction, the powers given to the Supreme Court. Which of the above statement(s) is/are correct? Select the correct answer from the code given below:

    View answer →

PDF