Author: Diksha, Co-Founder of Law with precision (LWP)
INTRODUCTION
The Constitution of India guarantees fundamental freedoms that form the foundation of a democratic society. Among these, the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the freedom of conscience and religion under Article 25 play a central role in protecting individual autonomy. These rights ensure that citizens are not only free to express their views but are also free to hold and practice beliefs according to their conscience.
In a diverse and pluralistic nation like India, tensions may arise when individual beliefs appear to conflict with collective expectations, particularly in matters relating to national identity and symbolic expressions of patriotism. While national symbols represent unity and sovereignty, the enforcement of respect toward them must operate within constitutional limits. Legislative measures such as the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act demonstrate the State’s interest in preserving national dignity, but their application must remain consistent with fundamental rights.
The judiciary, therefore, plays an essential role in balancing individual liberty with societal interests. Through constitutional interpretation, the courts ensure that personal freedom, minority rights, and democratic values are protected while maintaining respect for national integrity.
The song Jana-Jana-Gana, composed originally in Bangla by Rabindranath Tagore, was adopted in its Hindi version by the Constituent Assembly as the National Anthem of India on January 24, 1950. Article 51A of the Indian constitution constitutes it as a constitutional duty. It makes every citizen’s duty to abide by the constitution and respect its deal and institutions, the national flag and the national anthem. The Prevention of Insults to National Honours Act, 1971 is an Act of the Parliament of India which prohibits the disrespect or insult to the country’s national symbols, including the National Flag, National Emblem, National Anthem, the constitution, and map of India including contempt of Indian constitution.
BACKGROUND OF BIJOE EMMANUEL CASE
The National Anthem holds significant importance as a symbol of unity, patriotism, and national identity. It serves to honour the history, values, and sacrifices of a nation’s people, evoking a sense of pride and belonging among citizens. Through its lyrics and melody, the National Anthem fosters a shared emotional connection, transcending differences in background, beliefs, and experiences. It is often performed at key national events, ceremonies, and sporting occasions, reinforcing a collective spirit and reminding individuals of their allegiance to their country. Additionally, the National Anthem can inspire citizens to uphold the principles of democracy, liberty, and justice, serving as a reminder of the freedoms and rights that they enjoy as members of their nation.
The issue of respecting the Indian National Anthem has been under consideration for decades. The government intended to inculcate the values at an early stage. Hence, the National Anthem is recited in school assemblies across the country. Every teacher and pupil is expected to stand and sing the National Anthem during this period. However, when it was noticed that certain students in a school in Kerala did not participate in singing the National Anthem during the assembly due to their religious beliefs, the question became a nationwide issue. It was the landmark judgement of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala 1986.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts of the case involved three children, namely Bijoe Emmanuel, Binu Mol, and Bindu Emmanuel, who were followers of the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith and students at a school in Kerala. The students attended the school assembly every day. However, they did not sing the National Anthem during the assembly. It is important to note that the children neither disrespected nor insulted the National Anthem; instead, they stood respectfully and maintained complete silence while it was being sung. Their conduct was based on the sincere religious beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, according to which they could not participate in any act of salutation or homage except to God. The issue came to light when a Member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly (MLA) noticed that the children were not singing the National Anthem.
Following discussions on the issue in the Kerala Legislative Assembly, the matter was brought to the attention of the educational authorities. Acting on the directions of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, the three students were expelled from the school for refusing to sing the National Anthem. Aggrieved by the expulsion, the children’s father challenged the decision before the educational authorities, contending that the expulsion violated their fundamental rights. However, his representations were unsuccessful.
Subsequently, a writ petition was filed before a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, who dismissed the petition. An appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court was also dismissed. Thereafter, the children, through their father, approached the Supreme Court of India by filing a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
ISSUES INVOLVED
The principal issue before the Supreme Court of India was whether the expulsion of the three children from school for refusing to sing the National Anthem, despite standing respectfully during its rendition, violated their fundamental rights under the Constitution of India. In particular, the Court considered the following issues:
- Whether compelling students to sing the National Anthem, despite their sincerely held religious beliefs, violated their right to freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess and practise religion guaranteed under Article 25(1) of the Constitution.
- Whether the refusal to sing the National Anthem, while standing respectfully during its rendition, amounted to disrespect towards the National Anthem or constituted a violation of the fundamental duty under Article 51A(a) of the Constitution.
- Whether the expulsion of the children from the school was legally justified and could be sustained as a reasonable restriction on their fundamental rights under the Constitution.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
Petitioners’ Contentions
The petitioners primarily relied upon their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which protects an individual’s freedom of expression subject only to the reasonable restrictions prescribed under Article 19(2). They contended that the freedom of speech and expression also includes the freedom to remain silent and that they could not be compelled to sing the National Anthem against their conscience.
The petitioners further submitted that, as followers of the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith, their sincerely held religious beliefs did not permit them to participate in any act of salutation or homage except to God. Therefore, although they stood respectfully during the rendition of the National Anthem, they refrained from singing it. Their conduct neither showed disrespect to the National Anthem nor disrupted the school assembly. Consequently, their expulsion from the school solely on this ground was arbitrary, unconstitutional, and liable to be set aside.
The petitioners also relied upon Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which guarantee the freedom of conscience, the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion, and the right of every religious denomination to manage its own religious affairs. They argued that their refusal to sing the National Anthem was an exercise of their religious freedom and did not affect public order, morality, health, or the rights of any other person. Hence, no restriction could lawfully be imposed on their religious freedom in the facts of the case.
Further, the petitioners contended that neither the Kerala Education Act, 1959, nor the rules framed thereunder empowered the school authorities to expel students merely because they did not sing the National Anthem while otherwise showing due respect. Therefore, the action of the school authorities lacked any statutory basis and was illegal.
Respondents’ Contentions
The respondents argued that the Jehovah’s Witnesses did not constitute a separate religious denomination entitled to protection under Article 26 of the Constitution. According to them, the petitioners were merely members of a Christian association, and therefore their refusal to sing the National Anthem could not be justified on the basis of Article 26.
The respondents further contended that every citizen has a fundamental duty under Article 51A(a) of the Constitution to abide by the Constitution and to respect the National Flag and the National Anthem. According to them, the petitioners’ refusal to sing the National Anthem amounted to a failure to discharge this constitutional duty and constituted disrespect towards the National Anthem.
The respondents also relied upon Circular No. H6-47833/69 dated 18 February 1970, issued by the Director of Public Instruction, Kerala. The circular made it compulsory for all schools to conduct a morning assembly every day in which the National Anthem was to be sung, followed by the National Pledge. The respondents argued that the petitioners had violated the requirements of this circular by refusing to sing the National Anthem.
On these grounds, the respondents submitted that participation in singing the National Anthem during the school assembly was compulsory for every student and that the petitioners had deliberately failed to comply with this requirement. Accordingly, they argued that the decision to expel the petitioners from the school was lawful and justified.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court of India, through its judgment delivered on 11 August 1986, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Kerala High Court. The Court gave the following reasons:
- The Supreme Court observed that the principal issue was whether the expulsion of the children for refusing to sing the National Anthem, despite standing respectfully during its rendition, violated their fundamental rights. The Court held that the Kerala High Court had misdirected itself by examining whether the words or ideals of the National Anthem were inconsistent with the religious beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The real issue was not the content of the National Anthem but the act of singing it, which the children sincerely believed was contrary to their religious faith. The Court accepted that the children had genuine religious convictions and that their conduct did not amount to any disrespect towards the National Anthem. In reaching this conclusion, the Court referred to foreign judicial precedents, including Adelaide Company of Jehovah’s Witnesses Inc. v. Commonwealth (1943) and West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), which recognized that individuals cannot ordinarily be compelled to act against their sincerely held religious beliefs.
- The Court held that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, which also includes the freedom to remain silent. Although Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions on this right, no law required every individual to sing the National Anthem. The Court examined the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 and observed that Section 3 penalizes only those acts that intentionally prevent the singing of the National Anthem or cause disturbances to an assembly engaged in singing it. Since the children merely stood respectfully and did not obstruct or disturb anyone from singing the National Anthem, their conduct did not constitute an offence or an insult to the National Anthem.
- With respect to the circulars issued by the Director of Public Instruction, the Court held that they did not have statutory force and did not expressly require every student to sing the National Anthem. Nor did the circulars prescribe any punishment for non-compliance. The Court observed that even if the circulars were interpreted as compelling every student to sing the National Anthem irrespective of genuine religious objections, such an interpretation would violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25(1) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court ultimately held that the action of the school authorities and the Deputy Inspector of Schools in expelling the children was unconstitutional, as it infringed their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25(1) of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Kerala High Court, and directed the respondents to readmit the children to the school.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
The judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala is widely regarded as a landmark decision in Indian constitutional jurisprudence for its robust protection of individual liberty, freedom of conscience, and religious freedom. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that constitutional patriotism is rooted in respect for fundamental rights rather than in compelled expressions of nationalism. By holding that the petitioners’ respectful silence did not amount to disrespect towards the National Anthem, the Court adopted a rights-oriented approach that strengthens India’s commitment to constitutional democracy.
One of the most significant aspects of the judgment is the Court’s recognition that the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to remain silent. This interpretation broadened the scope of Article 19(1)(a) by acknowledging that freedom of expression also protects an individual’s choice not to speak or participate in a symbolic expression. The Court rightly held that patriotism cannot be enforced through coercion, particularly when no law mandates such conduct.
The judgment also provides a meaningful interpretation of Article 25(1) by emphasizing that freedom of conscience protects sincerely held religious beliefs, even if those beliefs are held by a small religious minority. Instead of assessing whether the religious belief was rational or acceptable to the majority, the Court confined its inquiry to whether the belief was genuine and whether its exercise adversely affected public order, morality, or health. This approach reinforces India’s constitutional commitment to religious pluralism and equal respect for minority faiths.
Another notable contribution of the judgment is its reaffirmation of the supremacy of Fundamental Rights over executive instructions and administrative circulars. The Court correctly observed that the circular issued by the Director of Public Instruction lacked statutory force and, therefore, could not curtail constitutionally guaranteed rights. This principle strengthens the rule of law by ensuring that executive authorities cannot impose obligations that are unsupported by legislation.
The judgment also reflects the constitutional philosophy of tolerance and inclusiveness. The petitioners did not refuse to attend the school assembly, create any disturbance, or prevent others from singing the National Anthem. They merely exercised their right to remain silent while demonstrating respect by standing throughout the anthem. The Court wisely distinguished between non-participation and disrespect, thereby preventing an overly rigid interpretation of patriotism that could undermine civil liberties.
However, the judgment is not free from criticism. Some scholars argue that permitting exemptions from practices associated with national symbols may encourage similar claims in situations where the sincerity of religious beliefs is difficult to verify. There is also concern that excessive judicial deference to individual conscience could create uncertainty in educational institutions when balancing constitutional freedoms with the need for uniform discipline. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court addressed this concern by limiting its protection to cases involving genuine and bona fide religious beliefs and by emphasizing that such protection is available only when no disturbance is caused to public order or the rights of others.
From a contemporary perspective, the judgment continues to be highly relevant. Debates concerning the National Anthem, national symbols, and the limits of compelled patriotism have resurfaced in subsequent constitutional litigation. The principles laid down in Bijoe Emmanuel continue to serve as an important safeguard against arbitrary state action and reaffirm that loyalty to the Constitution is best reflected through the protection of individual freedoms rather than compulsory displays of nationalism.
Overall, Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala remains one of the finest examples of the Supreme Court’s commitment to constitutional morality, religious tolerance, and the protection of minority rights. The decision demonstrates that genuine respect for the nation is consistent with the protection of individual conscience and that the Constitution does not permit the State to sacrifice fundamental freedoms in the name of enforced patriotism.
CONCLUSION
The decision in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala illustrates that the true strength of a constitutional democracy lies not in compelling uniformity but in protecting individual conscience. The Supreme Court affirmed that patriotism cannot be measured solely by outward acts such as singing the National Anthem; it can also be reflected through respectful conduct and unwavering adherence to constitutional values. By distinguishing between respectful silence and deliberate disrespect, the Court ensured that constitutional freedoms were not sacrificed in the pursuit of symbolic conformity.
The judgment also reinforces an enduring constitutional principle that the rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution cannot be curtailed by executive instructions or majoritarian expectations. It reminds us that the protection of minority beliefs is not an exception to democracy but an essential feature of it. The Constitution derives its legitimacy from its ability to safeguard the liberties of every individual, irrespective of the popularity of their beliefs.
Even decades after it was delivered, the ruling continues to guide discussions on freedom of conscience, religious liberty, and the limits of State authority. Its relevance extends beyond the facts of the case, serving as a reminder that national unity is strengthened not by compelling identical expressions of patriotism but by respecting the diversity of beliefs that coexist within a constitutional framework. In this sense, Bijoe Emmanuel remains a timeless affirmation that constitutional values must always prevail over coercive notions of nationalism.