Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala 1987 AIR 748

CASE TITLE: 

Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala 1987 AIR 748

COURT NAME AND BENCH: 

Supreme Court of India; Bench: Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy and Justice M.M. Dutt. 

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 

11th August, 1986

PARTIES INVOLVED:

Petitioners/Appellants: Bijoe Emmanuel & Others

Respondents: State of Kerala & Others

EQUIVALENT CITATIONS: 

1987 AIR 748, 1986 SCR (3) 518, AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 748

FACTS/BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

In the case of Bijioe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, three siblings: Bijoe, Binu Mol, and Bindu Emmanuel, who were essentially Jehovah’s Witnesses and also were students at a Kerala School, are at issue. As per the norms of this community, singing the national anthem is a matter of worship and hence prohibited under their belief. At the assembly of their school, the three siblings stood silently without uttering a word while the recitation of the national anthem, “Jana Gana Mana”, was going on, as a sign of respect. This behaviour, portrayed by them, invited significant moral and legal issues regarding civic responsibilities and freedom of religion in a secular society. 

One of the members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) became mindful of the refusal of the children to sing and recite the national anthem, which ignited debate and row in the Kerala Assembly. Because the act of those children was seen to be an insult to the national anthem, the school expelled them at the order given by the Inspector of Schools. The father of those children, in return, responded by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala, citing the argument that such removal of his children from the school was violative of their constitutional rights. Nonetheless, the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and the Single Judge both affirmed the school’s ruling. 

The family filed a Special Leave Petition under the Constitutional provision of Article 136 in the Supreme Court of India in the light of their dissatisfaction with the previous ruling. The constitutional issues addressed were regarding the potential infringement of the fundamental rights possessed by the children, most importantly, the right to freedom of religion, as entrenched in Article 25 and the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The children stated their act was not disrespectful; it just carried the essence of their religious beliefs. The challenging balance between the state’s aim to promote national emblems and unity and the individual’s right to freedom of religion was brought to the stage by this case. 

The Supreme Court’s decision stressed that the children’s respectful behaviour was protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25, and found that expulsion of the children violated their constitutional rights. A landmark precedent for the defence of individual rights in India was therefore set when the Court passed the order to the School to reinstate the students. 

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

1. Whether the fundamental right to freedom of religion of the children, as safeguarded by Article 25 of the Constitution, is violated when they are expelled for refusing to sing the national anthem because of their religious vows. 
2. Whether it is disrespectful to keep standing quietly and respectfully throughout the national anthem without joining in to recite it, amounts to a violation of the right to free speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a). 
3. Whether the assessment of the constitutionality of the administration activities and the educational policies requiring all students to sing the national anthem on the pretext of upholding a secular framework and safeguarding individual conscience. 

ARGUMENTS OF BOTH PARTIES

The petitioners, who were represented by the father of the children, argued that the constitutional provisions relating to freedom of speech and expression and freedom of religion, i.e., Articles 19(1)(a) and 25, respectively, were violated by requiring the children to forcibly sing the national anthem. They stated that the children’s faith mandates them to abstain from the acts of loyalty to any other entity than God since they are Jehovah’s Witnesses. The students were not disrespectful; instead, they did not say anything and remained silent during the national anthem. Since neither the Kerala Education Act nor any related rules and regulations required the expulsion for not singing the anthem, the petitioners were of the view that argued that the interference of the State was unfair and lacked support of concrete statutes, emphasising that the conscience of the individual is at the core of religious freedom. Citing the decision of the Supreme Court of the US in the landmark case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the petitioners contended that requiring people to salute the flag went against their sanctity of religious beliefs. They added that their conduct was not violative of morals or public order, making the expulsion arbitrary and illegal, with no justifiable ground or foundation. 

On the contrary, the respondents, constituting the State of Kerala, argued that singing the national anthem fosters national solidarity and respect and stands in confirmation with Article 51A. They proposed that allowing such exclusions may be prejudicial to national unity and result in disciplinary challenges in educational settings. Upon that, the unwillingness of the students to participate was characterised as a form of non-cooperation, which invited implementation of disciplinary sanctions accordingly. The respondents also stressed the significance of respecting symbols relating to national integrity and claimed that departmental circulars needed active participation. The State cited the High Court’s meticulous analysis, which found the anthem to be valid and acceptable, arguing that the need for being consistent in the interests of the country should overshadow personal convictions. Nevertheless, the respondents vehemently refused to agree to allegations of breach of constitutional rights, arguing that expulsion of persons who are non-compliant with the norms represented a justifiable restriction intended to promote unity of the nation and to uphold justice as well. In the environment of societal cohesion, this stance highlights the value of a common national identity over the expression of individuals. 

RATIO DECIDENDI

• The ruling of the Supreme Court was based on the reasoning that requiring the school children to sing the national anthem when it goes against their serious religious beliefs violates their right to freedom of religion as provided under Article 25 of the Constitution. 
• The Court went on to clarify that mere refusal to sing the anthem while being courteous does not completely amount to disrespectful conduct against the national symbol of the country and should not be seen as a transgression of morality, health, or public order. 
• The Court upheld that standing respectfully is enough to perform civic duties, and no existing statute or regulation requires students to sing the national anthem. 
• The Supreme Court upheld the basic right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, emphasising that this particular right encapsulates the freedom to abstain from indulging in activities that are not in connivance with one’s personal religious convictions as long as it does not affect the public adversely. 

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court decided in favour of the appellants in the landmark case of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, confirming that the refusal to sing the national anthem on the grounds of religious convictions did not amount to a breach of public order. Fundamental rights, including religious freedoms, are subject to fundamental duties, such as respecting the National Anthem. The Court emphasised the importance of national symbols in fostering unity and integrity. The Court was of the opinion that it was sufficient to show civic respect by standing quietly during the national anthem recitation. It put light on the fact that fundamental rights provided in Article 19(1)(a) relating to freedom of speech and expression, and Article 25 relating to freedom of religion, were infringed by any forced singing. The ruling emphasised the importance of the protection of conscience and faith in a secular society. The Court laid emphasis on genuine religious vows and beliefs must be recognised as long as public order is upheld by ordering the reinstatement of expelled children from the school. This decision ensured the safeguard of civil liberties in educational settings. 

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court affirmed that the refusal given by the appellants to sing the national anthem because of their religious beliefs did not infringe to breach of public order in this landmark case of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala. The Court submitted its conclusion by stating that there was sufficient civic respect displayed by remaining quiet during the playing of the anthem. Upon that, it observed that forcing people to sing the national anthem forcibly amounts to a violation of fundamental rights stated under Articles 25 and 19 (1)(a) relating to freedom of religion and freedom of speech and expression, respectively. The ruling went on to emphasise that no law or regulation required the anthem to be uttered, and that faith and conscience must be given respect in a secular society. The Court established that legitimate religious opinions must be respected as long as public order is maintained by ordering the school to readmit the expelled students. This decision upheld the norm that constitutionally protected liberties cannot be compromised so as to enforce patriotic rites. 

REFERENCE(S):

STATUTES

1. Constitution of India, Article 136. 
2. Constitution of India, Article 25. 
3. Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a). 
4. Constitution of India, Article 51A. 

CASE LAWS

1. Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 SCC 615 (Supreme Court of India). 
2. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). 

WEBSITES

1. Dhyeya Law, ‘Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala 1987 AIR 748’ https://www.dhyeyalaw.in/bijoe-emmanuel-v-state-of-kerala-1987-air-748 accessed 28 October 2025. 
2. LawBhoomi, ‘Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986)’ (16 January 2025) https://lawbhoomi.com/bijoe-emmanuel-v-state-of-kerala/ accessed 28 October 2025. 
3. The Legal Lock, ‘Case Brief: Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala’ https://thelegallock.com/case-brief-bijoe-emmanuel-v-state-of-kerala/ accessed 28 October 2025.