Discuss the constitutional limits on the state's power to mandate expressions of nationalism, with reference to the Bijoe Emmanuel case and the 2026 Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act.

Article 51A(a) makes respect for national symbols a fundamental duty, but duties are not judicially enforceable against the citizen in the way rights are enforceable against the state. The state may protect symbols; it may not compel affirmation of them — the line now tested by the challenge to the 2026 Amendment Act.

The constitutional baseline: Bijoe Emmanuel (1986)

• The Supreme Court struck down the expulsion of Jehovah's Witness schoolchildren who stood respectfully but did not sing the National Anthem [3].
• Ratio: no law obliges anyone to sing, and respectful silence is not disrespect; genuine conscientious belief is protected by Article 25(1) [3].
• The limit established is one of compelled speech: the state may require decorum, not participation.

Where the 2026 Amendment strains that limit

• The Act substitutes Section 3 of the 1971 Act to extend penal protection to the National Song: up to three years' imprisonment and/or fine, with a minimum one year on repeat conviction [1].
• Yet Section 3 punishes only intentionally preventing singing or disturbing an assembly — not silent abstention [2]. With "disturbance" undefined, and read with Home Ministry directions on singing the stanzas, enforcement discretion passes to the local police [4].
• A mandatory minimum removes the magistrate's power to impose a fine, making the sanction disproportionate for a matter of belief.
• In September 2026 the CJI Surya Kant Bench observed that a conscientious objector cannot face penal consequences, and that Bijoe Emmanuel would govern the amended law [4].

The space the state legitimately retains

• Parliament may designate symbols; the Court itself noted that the form and length of the song is for the elected government [4].
• Rights remain subject to Article 19(2) and public order, so genuine disruption of an assembly stays punishable [2].

The constitutional settlement is therefore narrow but firm: regulate conduct, not conscience. A simple explanation to Section 3 — that abstention without obstruction is no offence — would preserve Parliament's authority over symbols while honouring the freedom of conscience that Bijoe Emmanuel placed at the heart of Indian secularism.