CASE NAME	Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 SCC 615
CITATION	1986 SCR (3) 518, AIR 1987 SC 748, (1987) IJR 133 (SC), (1986) 3 SCJ 395, (1986) JT 115 (SC)
COURT	Supreme Court
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy and M.M. Dutt
PETITIONER	Bijoe Emmanuel and Others
RESPONDENT	State of Kerala and Others
DECIDED ON	Decided on 11th August, 1986

INTRODUCTION

The National Anthem demonstrates our patriotism. The National Anthem symbolizes our culture, beliefs, hardships, causes, and victories that we have all endured and overcome together. The nation's unity is maintained through a song. It is played everywhere, and listening to it makes us feel proud and at home. It is filled with pride and fervent feelings of patriotism for the nation. At school and college cultural assemblies, theater productions, and program and event openings, the National Anthem is played. It fosters pride, respect, nationalism, and a sense of solidarity and national identity, all of which we as citizens must uphold when we play it.  Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1960, stipulates that anyone who interferes with, stops or causes disruption during the singing of the national anthem faces a maximum sentence of three years in prison, a fine, or both. When the government failed to uphold the 25(1) basic principle and safeguard people's freedom of speech and expression, the court used its authority under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Supreme Court Justice C.O. Reddy is a treasure who has stood up for the rule of law and the honor of the court. He is renowned for having rendered a proactive judgment that altered India's legal system. As a judge, he rendered historic rulings prior to his retirement by using the extraordinary authority granted by Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution of 1949 to ensure full justice.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Three children who attended a school in Kerala—Bijou, Binu Mol, and Bindu Emmanuel are involved in the case. They participated in the morning assembly and attended school every day. However, they stood silently during the performance of the National Anthem rather than joining the other students in singing. Their father had advised them not to salute the flag or sing the national anthem since it went against their religious beliefs as Jehovah's Witnesses. The children were "law-abiding" and did not disrespect the National Anthem, according to the results of an investigation and report written by a panel. On July 26, 1985, the Head Mistress expelled the appellants from school per the directives of the Deputy Inspector of Schools.  The National Anthem's sentiments and language were not the Emmanuel children's grievance. To show their thanks, they always stood in for the National Anthem when it was played, even if they didn't sing it. Because they felt that their beliefs prohibited them from engaging in any rituals other than praying to their God, Jehovah, they did not sing. The appellants filed a Writ Petition in the High Court, requesting an order that forbade the authorities from preventing the children from attending school after the Education Authorities rejected the father's request that the children be permitted to attend school while awaiting government orders. One judge initially rejected the appellants' request, followed by a Division Bench.  The Kerala Education Act was the foundation for the Kerala High Court's decision. Although there is no such clause in the Act, Section 36 gives the Kerala government the authority to enact regulations to implement the Act's mandates and guarantee a high standard of instruction and curriculum in Keralan schools. Excellent moral education is a crucial curriculum component that does not injure people's religious or social sensibilities, as stated in Rule 9 of Chapter 8 of the Act. One of the moral attributes emphasized is love for one's country. Students may be suspended or expelled from school if they are found guilty of intentional disobedience, mischief, fraud, exam malpractice, or behavior that negatively affects other students. Citing Article 136 of the Constitution, the father petitioned the Supreme Court of India for special permission. On important occasions, the petitioners stood to show their respect for the National Anthem, even if they did not sing it. In defense of themselves, the children said that their religion prohibited them from taking part in such rituals unless they were praying to their God, Jehovah. Because they were stubborn, they didn't behave or think as they did. They emphasized that singing the hymn was an act of rebellion against their God and that it was idolatry. However, the respondents used the Kerala Education Act and Rules to support their actions.

ISSUES RAISED

• Is the children's expulsion from school in accordance with the rights protected by Articles 19(1) and 25 of the Indian Constitution? 
• If the Kerala Education Act (Section 36), Kerala Education Rules (Rules 6 and 9), and Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971 all support the expulsion of the three students from a Keralan school?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Argument on behalf of the Appellant

• In this case, the petitioners cited Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees them the fundamental right to free speech and expression. It states that subject to the restrictions outlined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution, no citizen shall be denied the right to free speech and expression. Other than their tributes to their God, they argued, their religious convictions prohibited them from taking part in any other offerings or recitals. Therefore, it cannot be argued that standing quietly and not interfering with the school assembly disrespects the national anthem. The Petitioners had no intention of disrespecting the National Anthem. Therefore, the school's expulsion on this pretense was unwarranted and needs to be reversed. 
• Furthermore, in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, the fundamental rights to exercise any religion and to oversee religious affairs, respectively, were invoked. Only public order, morals, health, and the other Part III laws may apply to this. Therefore, laws that violate the petitioners' right to freedom of religion cannot be implemented for any other reason. Therefore, the petitioners' refusal to participate in the singing of the national anthem is a part of their right to freedom of religion and does not impair morality, public order, or health or infringe upon any of the fundamental rights protected by Part III of the Constitution. Expulsion for the aforementioned reasons would be blatantly invalid.
• The petitioners further argued that no school is permitted to bar pupils from attending lessons for the mere reason that they choose not to participate in singing the national anthem under the Kerala Education Act of 1958 or its implementing regulations.

Argument on behalf of the Respondent

• The Respondents' initial argument was that the Jehovah's Witnesses are not even a religious sect, much less a religious concept. They are merely a group of Christians getting together. As a result, they are unable to invoke Article 26 of the Constitution for protection. Article 26 does not provide an exemption from performing the national anthem. 
• The Respondents further claimed that the Witnesses' actions were against Article 51A of the Constitution. Every person has a fundamental obligation to uphold the Constitution and show respect for the National Anthem and Flag, according to Article 51A of the Constitution. The Witnesses are disrespecting the National Anthem by refusing to sing it during the school assembly.
• The Respondents also cited the Director of Public Instruction's Circular H6-47833/69, dated 18-2-1970, on the Code of Conduct for Teachers and Students in Schools. All schools are required to hold a morning assembly each day before the start of classes, according to the statement. For the assembly, the entire school, including all of the students and instructors, will be present. Following the National Anthem, the entire school will march back to its classes after reciting the National Pledge in unison. According to the Respondents, the Petitioners also broke the aforementioned circular. 
• Based on the aforementioned arguments, the Respondents contended that the Petitioners were rightfully expelled from the school because they failed to engage in the singing of the National Anthem during the school assembly, which is required of all students.

JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the appellant Jehovah's Witnesses genuinely and consciously thought that their religion forbade them from participating in any rituals other than praying to Jehovah, their God, as was established beyond a reasonable doubt in the court of law. The court further noted that the petitioners were law-abiding, well-behaved citizens who stood with dignity as others sang the national anthem and would do so in the future. As a result, their actions did not violate Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, or conflict with the fundamental duties outlined in Article 51A of the Indian Constitution. The court also noted that the Director of Public Information's 1961 and 1970 circulars, as well as the penalties for non-compliance with them, violated Articles 25 and 19 of the Indian Constitution. The court further noted that there are no laws in India that require people to sing the national anthem. Therefore, the Supreme Court of India declared the aforementioned deportation order to be illegal.

CONCLUSION

The Court underlined that the Constitution guarantees people the freedom to practice their religion without external interference by respecting and taking into account a wide range of beliefs. Although the Court acknowledged the importance of national symbols in fostering a sense of unity and patriotism, it held that an individual's strong religious convictions could not be sacrificed in order to accomplish these ends. It was underlined that the public's definition of patriotism should not affect people's right to freedom of religion and that the government must intervene to stop people from being coerced into doing things that go against their religious convictions. The question of whether or not singing the national anthem should be required is one that is hotly debated and discussed all around the nation. However, some argue that singing the national anthem in places of worship, movie theaters, and other public gatherings, among other places, fosters a sense of unity and solidarity among the populace and serves as a symbol of patriotism that binds all of this wonderful country's residents together. Others think that as the right to silence is also granted to all citizens of this nation, the people themselves should have the freedom to decide whether or not to sing the national anthem. Those who hold this opinion contend that forcing someone to sing the national anthem against their will is a serious breach of their fundamental rights as guaranteed by Part III of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court agreed with the latter in the aforementioned case.