Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1987)

Three schoolchildren respectfully stood during the National Anthem but did not sing it due to sincere religious belief. They were expelled. The Supreme Court said: there is no law forcing anyone to sing the Anthem. Respectful standing is not disrespect. Expulsion violated Articles 19(1)(a) and 25.

• Core idea: Freedom of expression and religion protect quiet, respectful dissent.
• Outcome: Students must be allowed to study without hindrance; tolerance is a constitutional value.

• Were the expulsions justified under Kerala Education Act/Rules or the National Honour Act, 1971?
• Did the expulsions violate Articles 19(1)(a) (speech) and 25 (religion)?

• No law compels singing the National Anthem; respectful silence is not an insult.
• State action must honour tolerance; our traditions and Constitution practice tolerance.
• Education authorities cannot punish protected, respectful conduct.

Where conduct is respectful and based on sincere belief, the State cannot compel speech or ritual. The Constitution protects quiet dissent and religious conscience; tolerance is a binding value.

• Clarifies difference between respect and compulsion.
• Protects minority faith practices in public schools.
• Sets a high bar against punishing peaceful, respectful dissent.

1. No law compels singing the Anthem.
2. Respectful standing ≠ insult.
3. Articles 19(1)(a) & 25 protect conscience and expression.
4. Schools must act with tolerance.

Mnemonic: “SIT—Stand, Intend, Tolerate”

1. Stand: Respect shown by standing.
2. Intend: No intent to insult; sincere belief.
3. Tolerate: Constitution demands tolerance, not compulsion.

Article 19(1)(a)

Freedom of speech and expression, including the right not to speak.

Article 25

Freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess and practice religion.

National Honour Act, 1971

Penalises intentional insult to national symbols; respectful silence is not an offence.