BIJOE EMMANUEL V. STATE OR KERALA(1986) 3 SSC 615

FACTS OF THE CASE

In a significant legal case in Kerala, India, three students, Shashi Emmanuel, Shiney Emmanuel, and Sudeep Emmanuel, adhering to their Jehovah’s Witness faith, abstained from singing the national anthem during a school assembly. This led to their expulsion from the school, as the authorities deemed it a breach of discipline and disrespect to the national symbol. The parents contested the expulsion, asserting that it violated the children’s constitutional rights to freedom of religion and conscience as per Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution. The Kerala High Court upheld the expulsion, asserting that not singing the anthem was a breach of duty towards the nation and its symbols. This case then reached the Supreme Court, which grappled with whether the expulsion impinged upon the children’s fundamental rights, particularly Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 25(1). At its core, the case revolved around the conflict between the students’ religious convictions and the nation’s symbols, prompting critical discussions about how to harmonize religious freedom with the demands of patriotism in a democratic society.

LAW AND IMPORTANCE OF NATIONAL ANTHEM

The National Anthem embodies a nation’s values, culture, and unity, kindling patriotism and shared identity. India’s Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 safeguards its sanctity, penalizing disruptions. The Constitution, however, prevails. A Kerala case involving a youth’s failure to stand during the anthem at a cinema led to sedition charges, later dismissed by the High Court.

While not mandatory, the anthem’s significance is profound. Standing isn’t legally compelled; the Supreme Court hasn’t issued a directive. The law doesn’t dictate sitting or standing either. The anthem’s strength lies in its capacity to unite and evoke reverence, while personal devotion reflects in its observance. Ultimately, it represents an individual’s devotion and allegiance to the nation, embodying unity, pride, and respect.

ISSUES

The case involving Shashi, Shiney, and Sudeep Emmanuel entailed pivotal issues at the intersection of fundamental rights and societal values. The core dilemma centered on whether the Jehovah’s Witness children’s refusal to sing the national anthem, stemming from their religious beliefs, fell within the protective ambit of Article 25(1) of the Constitution, guaranteeing religious freedom. Simultaneously, the case questioned whether the act of singing the anthem could be considered an expression, thereby invoking Article 19(1)(a) on freedom of speech and expression. This conundrum mirrored a broader discord: reconciling the children’s religious rights with the school’s contention that non-participation undermined discipline and respect for national symbols.

Crucially, the case pitted individual rights against public interest, as the court grappled with safeguarding the children’s faith while considering whether participation in such national expressions was pivotal to fostering patriotism and unity in a democratic society. Additionally, it explored the scope of educational institutions in imposing behavioral norms like anthem singing, warranting an assessment of the balance between institutional ethos and individual rights. In its entirety, the case encapsulated the intricate interplay of religious freedom, individual expression, collective identity, and the role of educational institutions in molding responsible citizens.

ARGUMENTS 

• Appellants’ Arguments:

The appellants, Jehovah’s Witnesses, argued that their religious tenets barred participation in activities venerating “graven images,” including singing the national anthem. They asserted this stance, rooted in Article 25(1) of the Constitution, safeguarding freedom of religion and conscience. They emphasized that Article 25(1) guarantees their right to abstain from activities contradicting their beliefs, without disrupting public order. Additionally, they maintained that coerced participation compromised their personal autonomy and privacy, contending that choosing how to manifest patriotism should remain their prerogative.

• Respondents’ Arguments:

The respondents asserted that the national anthem symbolized national unity and integrity, fostering patriotism and loyalty among citizens. They contended that singing the anthem nurtured these values crucial for societal cohesion. They argued that the school’s anthem requirement was essential for instilling this sense of belonging. Moreover, they maintained that maintaining discipline and decorum among students was part of their school’s prerogative, and exempting the appellants might set a disruptive precedent.

The respondents posited that while individual religious rights were important, they must be balanced with the state’s interest in forging national identity and unity. They asserted that certain situations could warrant prioritizing public interest over personal convictions. Lastly, they stressed that refraining from anthem participation undermined the collective identity embodied in national symbols, potentially causing disunity among students.

JUDGEMENT

The judgment rendered a delicate balance between individual rights and collective interests. Acknowledging Article 25(1)’s scope, the court upheld the appellants’ right to abstain from the national anthem, rooted in their sincere religious beliefs. Emphasizing the nation’s strength in respecting diverse convictions, the court deemed coercive anthem singing counter to individual conscience protection. It underscored that genuine patriotism can’t be enforced, preserving citizens’ freedom to express it uniquely.

While acknowledging the need to balance rights, the court ruled that the appellants’ stance didn’t disrupt public order and wasn’t a precedent-setting threat. Upholding “constitutional morality,” the court stated upholding constitutional values was its duty, and genuine anthem respect emerged from voluntary sentiment. However, Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy dissented, asserting anthem singing’s secular nature and potential chaos in allowing exemptions, opposing the majority view.

REFERENCES

https://main.sci.gov.in/

https://indiankanoon.org/

https://lawcorner.in/

This Article is written by Sakshi Pawar of ISB&M College of Engineering, Pune, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin