BIJOE EMMANUEL V. STATE OF KERELA AND ORS (A.I.R 1987 SC 748)
| OVERVIEW OF THE CASE | |
| Case Name | Bijoe Emmanuel V. State of Kerala and Ors |
| Equivalent Citations | A.I.R 1987 SC 748,1986 SCR (3) 518 |
| Date of Judgement | August 11, 1986 |
| Court | The Supreme Court of India |
| Petitioner | Bijoe Emmanuel |
| Respondent | State of Kerala and Ors |
| Bench | Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy and Justice M.M. Dutt |
Introduction
The Indian National Anthem was at the centre of the case. Let’s first learn a few facts about our national anthem before moving on to the subject of this particular issue. The nation’s people, their difficulties, their history across time, their traditions, and more are all reflected in the national anthem. A song that is officially recognised by the government or the country’s constitution is typically considered to be patriotic. Students from a school in Kerala were expelled in one instance for failing to sing the national anthem.
They adhered to the Jehovah’s Witnesses religion, and singing the “Jana Gana Mana” was supposedly against their religious principles. The father of the children filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by the Kerala High Court since it was determined that the National Anthem did not contain any language that may hurt anyone’s religious beliefs. The children’s father then petitioned the Supreme Court for a special leave of absence, and the high court ruled that the children’s expulsion from school violated their right to freedom of expression because, despite the fact that they did not sing along with others when the National Anthem was being played, they stood in respect for those who did.
Facts of the case
In the instant case, three Jehovah’s Witness students, Bijou, Binu Mol, and Bindu Emmanuel, did not sing the national anthem during daily school assemblies because they sincerely believed that doing so went against their religious beliefs. In contrast, their two older sisters, who were also students at the same school, never voiced any objections to the practice and sang the national anthem every day. A member of the legislative assembly visited the school in July 1985 and attended the school assembly where he saw three students standing silently while others sang the national anthem. He felt that the students’ callous action had seriously insulted the nation’s honour. Consequently, a panel was established to look into the situation. The commission felt that the young people in question were law-abiding, well-behaved citizens who had never before been accused of insulting the national anthem. However, the three pupils were expelled by the school’s headmaster on the Deputy Inspector of Schools’ orders.The parents asked the headmistress to let their kids attend school until another government order on the subject arrived, but she disregarded their demands. The father of the expelled students then filed a writ petition with the High Court of Kerala, arguing that the expulsion was a serious violation of both the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to freedom of religion, which are guaranteed by Articles 19 and 25, respectively, of the Indian Constitution. The High Court dismissed the complaint, ruling that singing the national anthem did, in fact, violate and degrade the national honour because neither the lyrics nor the ideas in it were capable of insulting religious sensibilities. In response to this ruling, the father petitioned the Supreme Court for Special Leave in accordance with Article 136 of the Constitution.
Issues Raised
●Whether the expulsion of the children from the school is consistent with the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) and Article 25 of the Indian Constitution?
●If the expulsion of the 3 students from a school in Kerala is justified under Kerala Education Act (Section 36), Kerala Education Rules(Rule 6 and 9) and Section 3 of Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971?
Contentions of parties
●Arguments of the Petitioners:-
The petitioners said that the pupils truly believed that singing the national anthem would violate their religious beliefs. They further argued that their refusal to sing the national anthem and their silence fell squarely within the ambit of the fundamental rights guaranteed to them by Article 25 and Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners further argued that the students’ actions did not violate either Section 3 of the 1971 Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act or Article 51A of the Constitution because they stood respectfully while others sang the national anthem. The aforementioned clause neither requires anyone to stand and sing the national anthem nor penalises doing so.
●Arguments of the Respondent:-
In the specific situation, the respondents argued that the students’ expulsion was legal because the act of the three pupils not performing the national anthem was derogatory to the national honour. The respondents countered that the expulsion did not violate Article 25 of the Indian Constitution because the national anthem contained no words or phrases that were offensive to, disrespectful of, or contrary to the petitioners’ religious beliefs. According to the respondents, the expulsion of the students was neither arbitrary or in violation of the Constitution of India’s Article 19(1)(a) because it was subject to reasonable constraints under Section 19’s subsection (2).The respondents argued that the expelled students had violated both Article 51A of the Indian Constitution and were subject to the penalties outlined in Section 3 of the aforementioned act.
Judgment
The appellant Jehovah’s Witnesses genuinely and deliberately believed that their religion forbade them from participating in any rituals other than the prayers to Jehovah their God, the highest court reaffirmed in the case at hand. This was proven beyond a reasonable doubt before the court of law. Despite the appellant’s beliefs seemed weird and bizarre, there was no question about their sincerity. The court also noted a number of court decisions, including Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay and S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, among others, in which Jehovah’s Witnesses battled tenaciously for the global realisation of their religious teachings. The court further noted that the national anthem is not required to be sung by citizens of India under any laws, and that the Director of Public Information’s 1961 and 1970 circulars, as well as the sanctions for disobeying them, were in violation of Articles 25 and 19 of the Indian Constitution. As a result, the Supreme Court of India declared the aforementioned deportation decision to be illegal.
Conclusion
Although the Supreme Court has ruled and made plain where it stands on the National Anthem issue, it occasionally comes up again. A family was ejected from a movie theatre in Mumbai just last year for refusing to stand during the playing of the National Anthem. A few years ago, the government closed a school in Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, and its proprietor, Mohammad Zia-il-haq, was imprisoned for forbidding the singing of the National Anthem during the school’s Independence Day celebrations. He asserted that the phrase “bharata bhagya vidhata” violated Islamic precepts.
For refusing to sing the National Anthem, individuals have in the past faced sedition charges. Other issues that occasionally come up include the validity of musical renditions of the National Anthem, its inclusion in motion pictures, and whether or not touching one’s heart while the Anthem is playing constitutes an insult. People in a nation should appreciate their national anthem without a doubt, but as long as it is one of the recognised ways, it shouldn’t be imposed on them.
References
●http://indiankanoon.org
●https://ww.scconline.com
●https://blog.ipleaders.in/national-anthem-shyam-narayan-chouksey-case/
Witten by: Ishita Singh, Chotanagpur Law college Ranchi, 2nd semester, an intern under legal Vidhiya.
