Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala

Three siblings, Bijoe, Binu Mol and Bindu Emmanuel, studied at a school in Kerala. They belonged to a Christian sect called the Jehovah's Witnesses. Their faith holds that worship belongs to God alone, so they do not sing songs in worship of, or in tribute to, anything, including the National Flag or the National Anthem. For them, singing the anthem was an act of worship.

At the school's morning assembly, when the National Anthem, Jana Gana Mana, was sung, the three children stood up respectfully but did not join in the singing. When this came to notice, the school expelled them on the direction of an education officer. The education authorities relied on two circulars issued by the Director of Public Instruction in 1961 and 1970, which required the whole school to sing the anthem.

The parents said the children were not showing any disrespect and were not singing only because of their religious faith. The father's representations did not help. The children filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Court, which was dismissed by the single judge and then by the Division Bench. The matter then reached the Supreme Court.

1. Is singing the National Anthem compulsory, and can the State force a person to sing it against their religious faith?

2. Does not singing amount to disrespect, or does standing up respectfully fulfil the duty under Article 51A to respect the National Anthem?

3. Was the State's action a reasonable restriction that could be justified in the name of public order, morality or health?

For the children: the parents argued that the children were not showing any disrespect to the National Anthem; they stood respectfully and simply did not sing because of their religious faith.

For the State: the education authorities relied on the 1961 and 1970 circulars of the Director of Public Instruction, which required the whole school to sing the National Anthem.

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Bijoe and his siblings.

The Court found that the children showed no disrespect; they stood silently and respectfully, and their refusal came from a genuine, sincere religious faith. The Court said it is not for a court to decide whether a religious faith is rational; the only question is whether it is genuinely held.

Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 makes it an offence to intentionally prevent the singing of the National Anthem or to cause disturbance to an assembly singing it. Standing respectfully without singing does neither, so the children committed no offence.

The government instructions requiring the anthem to be sung had no statutory basis. A restriction on fundamental rights can be imposed only by law, not by executive instructions. The circulars also could not be treated as issued in the interest of public order, decency or morality, so they did not justify the restriction.

On Article 51A(a), standing up respectfully is itself an act of respect for the National Anthem; respect does not require singing. A Commission set up after the matter arose had also reported that the children were well-behaved, law-abiding and respectful.

The Court held that compelling the children to sing violated Article 25(1) (freedom of conscience and religion) and Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech, which includes the freedom to remain silent). It directed the school to readmit the children.

Justice Chinnappa Reddy ended the judgment with the famous line: "our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy preaches tolerance; our Constitution practises tolerance; let us not dilute it."

Constitution of India, Article 25(1); Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a); Constitution of India, Article 51A(a); Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, Section 3; Circulars of the Director of Public Instruction, Kerala (1961 and 1970)

This is a landmark case on freedom of religion and conscience. It shows that fundamental duties, such as respecting the National Anthem, are important but cannot be used to crush fundamental rights. It strengthened secularism by holding that the State cannot force a person to act against their religious faith. It establishes that the right to free speech includes the right to remain silent, and that executive instructions cannot restrict fundamental rights. It also teaches that national unity does not mean uniformity but unity that respects diversity. Students should remember the Jehovah's Witnesses, Article 25(1), Article 19(1)(a), Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, the rule against restricting rights by executive instructions, and the famous tolerance line. The lecture also notes that, on playing the anthem in cinema halls, the Supreme Court made it compulsory in 2016 and changed this in 2018 to make it optional.

Hypothetical: Zoya is a student whose sincere religious belief forbids her from singing any song of tribute. During the school assembly, she stands respectfully while the National Anthem is sung but does not sing. Her principal, Farhan, relying only on an internal circular, suspends her. Applying Bijoe Emmanuel, Zoya can challenge the suspension: she showed respect by standing, she did not prevent the singing or disturb the assembly, and a circular without any law behind it cannot restrict her rights under Articles 25(1) and 19(1)(a). If Zoya had instead shouted to stop the anthem from being sung, the position would be different, as intentionally preventing the singing is an offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.