Polity · 31 Jul 2026

Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala Vande Mataram

Assertion (A): The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026 criminalises intentional disruption of the singing of Vande Mataram, but does not criminalise mere silent non-participation. Reason (R): In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), the Supreme Court held that there is no legal provision compelling anyone to sing the National Anthem and that respectful silence does not amount to disrespect.

ABoth A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
BBoth A and R are true but R is NOT the correct explanation of A
CA is true but R is false
DA is false but R is true

Tests the ability to distinguish two true statements from a genuine explanatory relationship between them, a higher-order analytical skill beyond simple fact recall.

Subscribe / Login in App →
This question is based on: Vande Mataram Gets a Penal Clause. The Constitution Never Gave It One.
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 31 Jul 2026
About this question

Why in news

The Rajya Sabha passed the Bill on July 29, 2026, extending penal protection to Vande Mataram for the first time since the original 1971 Act, amid an Opposition walkout.

Why for UPSC

This format tests whether aspirants can distinguish "both statements are true" from "one explains the other," a nuanced skill UPSC applies to constitutional precedent questions.

Prelims summary

The 2026 Vande Mataram Amendment criminalises active disruption, not non-participation; Bijoe Emmanuel (1986) protects silent non-participation under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25(1), though it did not directly shape this Bill's text.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.