Bijoe Emanuel Case Analysis: Freedom of Expression and National Anthem

The question asks about the change in rights ensured under the Bijoe Emanuel Vs. State of Kerala case concerning the National Anthem and Fundamental Duties. However, the case is primarily celebrated for its landmark ruling on Fundamental Rights, specifically the freedom of speech and expression.

Background of the Case

The case involved three students, members of the Jehovah's Witnesses sect, who were expelled from their school in Kerala for refusing to sing the Indian National Anthem. Their religious beliefs prevented them from participating in singing any anthem other than that of their own faith. The school authorities, citing the prevention of disrespect to the National Anthem, expelled them.

Core Issue: Freedom of Speech vs. National Anthem Obligation

The central legal question was whether compelling the students to sing the National Anthem violated their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court had to balance the respect for the National Anthem with the citizens' fundamental rights.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court of India, in its historic judgment in Bijoe Emanuel Vs. State of Kerala (1986), ruled in favor of the students. The Court held that:

• The fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) includes the freedom of speech and expression, which also encompasses the freedom to remain silent.
• Simply standing respectfully during the National Anthem without singing does not amount to disrespect or a punishable offense.
• Forcing the students to sing the anthem, against their religious conscience, was a violation of their fundamental rights.

Analysis of Options

Let's examine the given options in light of the Bijoe Emanuel judgment:

• Option 1: Person can be silent while singing without disrespect to National Anthem - This aligns perfectly with the Supreme Court's ruling. The judgment affirmed that silence during the anthem, when based on genuine conscience, is not disrespectful and is protected under freedom of expression.
• Option 2: Sale of tricolor handkerchief with word 'India' and "Mera Bharat Mahan" is disrespect to National Flag - This option discusses disrespect to the National Flag, which is a separate issue governed by different laws and legal precedents (like the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971). It was not the central point of the Bijoe Emanuel case.
• Option 3: The force of recognising regionalism, communalism and linguism, the unity and integrity of India can be preserved by spirit of brotherhood - This option touches upon national integration and unity, which are broader constitutional goals, but not the specific right adjudicated in the Bijoe Emanuel case regarding the National Anthem.
• Option 4: Maintain discipline and devotion to duty - While important values, this option is too general. The Bijoe Emanuel case focused specifically on the freedom to express or *not* express oneself, even in the context of national symbols, rather than a general duty of discipline.

Conclusion

The Bijoe Emanuel case definitively established that the right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to remain silent. Therefore, a person can choose not to sing the National Anthem without being considered disrespectful, provided they show due respect otherwise. This directly corresponds to the first option.