BIJOE EMMANUEL V. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS [A.I.R 1987 SC 748]
| Case Name | Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala and Ors |
| Equivalent Citation | A.I.R 1987 SC 748, 1986 SCR (3) 518 |
| Court | The Supreme Court of India |
| Parties to the Case] | Bijoe Emmanuel (Petitioner), State of Kerala and Ors (Respondent) |
| Date of Judgement | August 11, 1986 |
| Judge Bench | Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy and Justice M.M. Dutt |
- INTRODUCTION-
Pursuant to a circular issued by the Director of Public Instruction, Kerala, all the students of the schools in the state of Kerala were made to assemble in one place to sing the National anthem before the commencement of classes every day. Three students of the Jehovah’s Witness sect however, refused to sing the national anthem as the they believed that singing the same was against the tenets of their religion. Consequently, the students were expelled from the school. This matter was brought before the apex court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India wherein the court were to decide whether the expulsion of the students from school for not singing the country’s national anthem was in fact a violation of the student’s right to freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion under Section 25(1) and the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The court were to also decide whether the fundamental duty under Article 51A and Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 were violated by the student’s conduct or not. In the current time and age where the question as to whether the singing of the national anthem in education institutions shall be made mandatory is discussed at large with varying views being presented by each the Bijoe Emmanuel case acts as landmark case with respect to the freedom of speech and expression.
- BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE-
In the Instant case, three students namely, Bijou, Binu Mol, and Bindu Emmanuel belonging to the Jehovah’s Witness Sect studying in a school in Kerala while attending the school assembly every day did not sing the national anthem as they bonafidely believed that singing the national anthem was not in conformity with their religious beliefs while their two elder sisters studying in the same school never objected to such practice and sung the national anthem every day. On July 1985 a member of the legislative assembly visited the school and attended the school assembly where he noticed three children standing silently while others sung the anthem, he was of the view that such callous act of the students caused grave disrespect to the national honour of the country. Thus, a commission was set up to investigate the matter at hand. The commission was of the view that the children in question were well behaved ad law abiding citizens who had not been accused of disrespecting the National Anthem earlier. Yet the head master of the school as per the instructions of the Deputy Inspector of Schools expelled the three students. The parents requested the headmistress to allow the children to attend the school until further government order on the said matter is received however, these requests were not paid heed to. As a result of which the father of the expelled students filed a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala on grounds that such expulsion was a grave violation of the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to freedom of religion enshrined under Articles 19 and 25, respectively of the Indian Constitution. The High Court dismissed the case by stating that no words or thoughts in the national anthem were capable of offending religious convictions and thus not singing the national anthem did in fact disregard and tarnish the national hounour. Following this decision, the father pursuant to Article 136 of the Constitution, then filed a Special Leave petition before the apex court.
- ISSUES RAISED-
- Whether the circulars issued by the Director of Public Information were violative of Article 25 and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, 1950?
- Whether the act of the students expelled was a violation of Article 51A of the Constitution of India, 1950, and Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.
- CONTENTION OF PARTIES-
- Arguments of the Respondents-
In the given case the respondents contended that the expulsion of the students was constitutional as the act of the three students not singing the National anthem was disrespectful to the national honor. The respondents argued that the national anthem did not have any words or sentences which were repugnant to, disrespectful, or against the religious tenets of the petitioners thus the expulsion was not violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The respondents further argued that the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India was subject to reasonable restrictions under sub-section (2) of Section 19 thus, the expulsion of the students was not unconstitutional or arbitrary. Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 endeavors to protect the sanctity of the symbols of national interests including the National Anthem, and National Flag, inter alia. As per the said provision, anyone who prevents the singing of the Indian national anthem or causes disturbance to any assembly engaged in singing may be punished with imprisonment that may extend up to three years or with a fine or both. The respondents contended that the expelled students were liable for the punishment prescribed under Section 3 of the aforementioned act and had also violated Article 51A of the Constitution of India.
- Arguments of the Petitioners-
The petitioners contended that the students bonafidely believed that singing of national anthem would be against their religious tenets. Further contending that not singing the national anthem and remaining silent was well within the fundamental rights conferred to them under Article 25 and under Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution of India. The petitioners also contended that the students neither violated Article 51A of the Constitution nor Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 as the act of the students was not disrespectful whatsoever towards the national anthem, they stood respectfully while others sang the national anthem. The said provision does not create an obligation on anyone to stand up and sing the anthem nor does it penalize such conduct. The students expelled were law-abiding citizens who had not been accused of disrespecting the national anthem in the past. In light of the aforementioned contentions, the petitioners prayed before the hon’ble court to set aside the expulsion order.
- JUDGEMENT-
In the given case the apex court reiterated that it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt before the court of law that the appellant Jehovah’s Witnesses truly and consciously believed that their religion did not permit them to join any rituals except the prayers to Jehovah their God. Even though the appellant’s beliefs may seem bizarre and strange, the sincerity of these beliefs was genuine beyond doubt. The court further observed that the petitioners are well behaved and law-abiding citizens who stood respectfully while others sang the national anthem and would continue to do so in the future and thus their acts were not inconsistent with the fundamental duties enshrined under Article 51A of the Constitution of India nor did it violate Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. The court also cited several judicial pronouncements such as the Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay, S.P Mittal v. Union of India, inter alia wherein Jehovah’s Witnesses incessantly fought for the realization of their beliefs and religious tenets the world over. The court further observed that there are no laws in India that make it mandatory for individuals to sing the national anthem and that the circulars of 1961 and 1970 issued by the Director of Public Information and the punishment for no-conformity with these circulars thereof were in contravention with Article 25 and Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the said expulsion order was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of India.
- CONLUSION-
Whether singing the national anthem shall be made mandatory or not is a highly debatable topic which is discussed and deliberated upon incessantly throughout the country. While several contend that singing the National anthem in educational institutions, cinema halls, on important occasions, inter alia brings a sense of cohesiveness and oneness among the masses and that it is a symbol of patriotism which unites all citizens of this great nation. Others believe that whether to sing the national anthem or not shall be the prerogative of the people itself and must not be a mandate as the right to remain silent is also a right bestowed upon the citizens of this country. The people having such view believe that making an individual sing the national anthem against their will is a grave violation of the fundamental rights provided under Part III of the Constitution of India. In the aforementioned case the apex court adopted the latter’s view.
Written by: Ananya Gosain, Law College Dehradun, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
