Quiz 15 — Flag Code of India & National Honour Act

Statements 1, 3 and 4 are correct. In Naveen Jindal (23 January 2004; CJI V.N. Khare, Brijesh Kumar and S.B. Sinha JJ.) the Court held that flying the National Flag freely with respect and dignity is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a), regulable by law under Article 19(2), and that the Flag Code — executive instructions, not “law” within Article 13(3)(a) — is to be followed so far as it preserves that respect and dignity. Statement 2 is false: the judgment itself records that the Flag Code of India, 2002 “came into force with effect from 26.1.2002”, two years before the Court ruled, so the judgment could not have produced the Code. Section 3 of the Emblems and Names Act, 1950 bars use of a Scheduled name or emblem for any trade, business, calling or profession, or in a patent title, trade mark or design, without the Central Government's permission, and the National Flag is an emblem in its Schedule. In Bijoe Emmanuel (11 August 1986) the expulsion of students who stood respectfully during the Anthem but did not sing was held to violate Articles 19(1)(a) and 25. (a) accepts statement 2, which is chronologically impossible; (b) and (c) undercount — typically by tying Naveen Jindal to Article 21 or Article 25 instead of Article 19(1)(a), or by doubting that the Emblems Act reaches trade marks.

Both A and R are true, and R explains A. The PINH (Amendment) Act, 2026 — ★ Act No. 11 of 2026, assent and Gazette dated 6 August 2026 — substituted s.3: whoever intentionally “(a) prevents the singing of the National Anthem or the National Song; or (b) causes disturbance to any assembly engaged in such singing” is punishable with imprisonment up to three years, or fine, or both. Section 3A, inserted in 2003 and not touched in 2026, says that whoever “having already been convicted of an offence under section 2 or section 3 is again convicted of any such offence” is punishable “with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than one year”. Because the National Song offence now sits inside s.3, the s.3A minimum reaches it; the PIB backgrounder of 30 July 2026 says repeat offenders who disrupt Vande Mataram now face the same one-year minimum. (b) denies the link, though it is the placing of the Song inside s.3 that brings s.3A into play; (c) rejects R, though s.3A and the substituted s.3 read exactly so — the minimum on a repeat conviction is one year, not three; three years is the maximum term that s.2 and s.3 themselves prescribe; (d) rejects A, as if the Song still lay outside s.3 and therefore outside s.3A.

The order is (ii) → (i) → (iv) → (iii) → (v). The Flag Code of India, 2002 took effect on 26 January 2002, superseding the “Flag Code—India”. Naveen Jindal was decided on 23 January 2004, and the judgment itself records the Code in force from 26.1.2002. The PINH (Amendment) Act, 2005 (No. 51 of 2005, dated 20.12.2005) inserted clause (e) of Explanation 4 to s.2 — costume, uniform or accessory worn below the waist, and printing on cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins, undergarments or any dress material. MHA Order No. 02/01/2020-Public (Part-III) of 30.12.2021 amended para 1.2 to allow flags “hand spun and hand woven or machine made”, of cotton, polyester, wool or silk khadi bunting. The July 2022 order amended para 2.2(xi) so that a flag displayed in the open or on the house of a member of the public may be flown day and night. (a) puts the judgment before the Code, the error of treating Naveen Jindal as the reason the Code was framed; (c) swaps the 2021 and 2022 orders — the material change came first, the day-and-night change second; (d) places the 2005 PINH amendment before the 2004 judgment.