Authored By: Utkarsha Kaushik
Bharati Vidyapeeth New Law College Pune
Case Name: Bijoe Emmanuel and Ors. V. State of Kerala and Ors. (1986)
Neutral Citation: 1986 INSC 167
In The Supreme Court of India
Decided On: 11.08.1986
Hon’ble Judges/Coram:
M.M. Dutt and O. Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff (Students): Fali Sam Nariman, T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, K.J. John, and M. Jha, Advs
For Respondents/Defendant (State): G. Viswanatha Iyer, Baby Krishna for Respondent Nos. 1to 3, P.S. Poti and E.M.S. Anam, Advs
Facts of the Case:
There were three students in the school in Kerala, namely Bijoe, Binu Mol, and Bindu Emmanuel, who were believers of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The students attend the school assembly every day, but they do not participate in singing the National Anthem during the assembly. It was observed that the children never disrespected or insulted the National Anthem during the assembly. They always stood respectfully and quietly for the National Anthem. This was done due to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which provided that the Witnesses would participate only in religious offerings and none other. They were noticed by a member of the legislative assembly (MLA), which led to debates in the Assembly on this issue. As a result, the students were expelled from the school at the School Inspector’s instruction. Aggrieved by the expulsion, the father of the children sought relief from the decisions of the school administration. However, the plea was of no benefit.
A writ petition was filed before the Single Judge of the Kerala High Court for the relief, but he dismissed the case. The Division Bench of the High Court also rejected the appeal of the children. Therefore, a Special Leave Petition was preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.
Issues Involved:
- Whether the non-participation of the children in singing the National Anthem during the school assembly leads to disrespect for the National Anthem?
- Whether the expulsion of the children led to the violation of their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a), i.e., “Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression”?
- Whether the expulsion led to the violation of Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution?
Arguments of the Parties:
- Petitioner’s Contentions –
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees that every citizen has freedom of speech and expression. It includes the right to express one’s opinion freely by words, writing, printing, pictures, or any other medium. However, Article 19(2) states that nothing in Article 19(1)(a) shall prohibit a State from enacting laws that place reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right granted by the aforementioned subclause in the interests of India’s sovereignty and integrity, the State’s security, friendly relations with other nations, public order, decency or morality, or in connection with contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offense. Subject to public order, morality, and health. So, standing silently during the National Anthem in the Assembly demonstrated respect and did not constitute disruption or disrespect.
Under Article 25(1) and 26 of the Indian Constitution, all persons have the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health, and to the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. Refusing to sing the anthem was a conscientious religious objection and did not threaten public order or morality.
We can state right away that there is no legal requirement that anyone sing the national anthem, and we do not believe that it is disrespectful to the song if someone who respectfully stands up during the singing chooses not to participate in the singing. Indeed, every Indian citizen is required under Article 51-A(a) of the Constitution “to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem.” Standing up during the singing of the national anthem is a sign of proper respect. Saying that not participating in the song is disrespectful would be incorrect.
The Kerala Education Act of 1958 and its implementing regulations did not require students to sing the national anthem or permit expulsion for non-participation. The Department’s circular could not supersede fundamental rights since it lacked statutory support.
- Respondent’s Contention
The first contention raised by the Respondents was that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are not even a religious sect, let alone them being a religious belief. They are only an association of people following Christianity. Therefore, they cannot have any protection under Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution.
As per Article 51A, this is the fundamental duty of citizens to abide by the Constitution and respect the National Flag and National Anthem. So, by not choosing to sing the National Anthem in the School Assembly, the Witnesses are disrespecting the National Anthem. Additionally, the Respondents focused on the circular issued by the Director of Public Instruction for the Code of Conduct of the Teachers and Pupils in the Schools. It states that “ It is compulsory that all the schools shall have the morning Assembly every day before the actual instruction begins. The whole school, with all the pupils and teachers, shall be gathered for the Assembly. After the singing of the National Anthem, the whole school shall, in one voice, take the National Pledge before marching back to the classes.” So, according to this, by not singing the National Anthem, the students were violating the circular, which means they are rightly expelled from the school.
Judgement of the Case:
The Supreme Court acknowledged the unusual beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Supreme Court said that standing quietly during the National Anthem is a form of respectful expression, and it does not violate any law. According to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, preventing or disrupting the singing of the National Anthem is punishable, but it does not criminalize its non-participation.
The Supreme Court said, “The Witnesses students stand up on such occasions to show their respect for the National Anthem, but they do not sing the Anthem,” they state in the Writ Petition. They only stop singing because they sincerely believe and feel that their religion forbids them from participating in any rituals other than praying to their God, Jehovah. So, there is no question that the petitioners sincerely and diligently believe what they claim.
According to Article 25(1), there is a freedom of religion, which gives all persons the right to practice religion, including both actions and inactions guided by conscience, as long as they are not disrupting public order, morality, or health. The students did not breach these conditions by not singing the National Anthem.
The Supreme Court also said that the Department’s circular has no statutory authority and it can not impose restrictions on the fundamental rights.
The court stated that the students were not to be penalised for not singing during the National Anthem.
Ratio Decidendi:
It is against Articles 19(1)(a) and 25(1) to force someone to sing the National Anthem despite sincere religious objections.
If someone’s fundamental rights are violated by a court order, they are entitled to protection.
Conclusion:
As per the ruling in the Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala case, the children’s fundamental rights to freedom of religion and speech under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25(1) of the Indian Constitution were violated by their deportation. The school was ordered to readmit the pupils after the Supreme Court declared that it was unconstitutional to force youngsters to sing against their true religious views and that standing respectfully during the playing of the national anthem was sufficient to demonstrate patriotism.
