Constitutional Law

Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala

(1986) 3 SCC 615

Facts

Three schoolchildren belonged to the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith.
Their religious belief permitted them to respect the National Anthem but prohibited them from singing words they considered inconsistent with their duty to God.
During the school assembly, they stood respectfully while the National Anthem was sung but remained silent.
They neither disrupted the assembly nor showed disrespect.
Following objections from a legislator and educational authorities, the children were expelled from school.
The Kerala High Court upheld the expulsion after examining the Anthem’s words and concluding that they contained nothing offensive to the children’s religion.
The children appealed to the Supreme Court under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25.

Whether the Constitution protects a right to remain silent during the National Anthem.
Whether expulsion violated freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
Whether the children’s conscientious religious belief was protected by Article 25.
Whether any valid law required every student to sing the Anthem.

Freedom of speech and expression includes the freedom not to speak or not to be compelled to express a belief.
Article 25 protects freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess and practise religion.
The sincerity of a religious belief does not depend upon whether judges consider it rational or logically necessary.
Religious freedom may be restricted only by valid law on grounds such as public order, morality and health.
Executive instructions without statutory force cannot override a fundamental right.
Standing respectfully without singing does not amount to intentionally preventing or disturbing the National Anthem.

The Court found that the children had shown complete respect.
They stood during the Anthem, remained silent and caused no disturbance.
Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act punished intentional prevention of singing or disturbance of an assembly.
Their conduct satisfied neither element of the offence.
No statutory provision required every person present to sing the Anthem.
The school authorities relied mainly upon departmental instructions, which could not impose a restriction upon constitutional freedom without lawful authority.
The High Court had also approached the religious issue incorrectly.
The question was not whether the Court found the Anthem compatible with the children’s faith.
The proper question was whether their belief was honestly and conscientiously held.
The belief was shown to be genuine and was not being used as an excuse for disorder or disrespect.
Compelling the children to sing would force them to communicate words contrary to conscience.
Their silence therefore fell within both:
the negative aspect of Article 19(1)(a); and
religious conscience under Article 25.
Patriotism could not be constitutionally measured by compulsory verbal participation where respectful conduct was maintained.

The Supreme Court set aside the expulsion and directed that the children be readmitted.
Their respectful silence did not insult the National Anthem or violate any law.