This Case Commentary is written by Mallika Rani Garimella, a LLM student of Veeravalli College of Law, Adikavi Nannayya University

Abstract:

Our National Anthem shows our beliefs, culture, sufferings, and triumphs where we suffered and faced together. A song that keeps all people in the country united. The National Anthem proves our patriotism towards our country. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1960, Sec 3 of the act has a punishment of extended 3 years imprisonment or fine or both, when anyone interrupts or prevents or causes disturbance while singing National Anthem. The Court has exercised its authority under Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution to protect People’s freedom of speech and expression and to maintain the 25(1) constitutional principles when the government has failed to do so. This paper is aimed to examine the Supreme Court using articles 19(1) (a) and 25(1) in the Constitution of India, 1949.

Primary Details of the Case:

· Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

· Petitioner: Bijoe Emmanuel & Others

· Respondent: State of Kerala & Others

· Case No: Civil Appeal No. 870/1986

· Case Decided on: 11/08/1986

· Judges/Bench: O. Chinnappa, M. M. Dutt

· Legal Provisions Involved : Article 19(1)(a) and 25(1)

· Citation : 1987 AIR 748, 1986 SCR (3) 518

Issues Involved:

· Whether Civil Appeals filed under Article 19(1) (a) and 25 of the Indian Constitution are valid or not?

· Whether expulsion of children from school violated Fundamental Rights like the Right to Education and the Right to Religion are violated or protected?

· Is the children in the said case propagating religion of their own Constitutional or not?

· Whether Sec 36 of Kerala Education Act, 1959 is relevant to the said case or not?

Legal Principles Involved:

Ø Article Right to Education

Ø Article 25- Right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion

Ø Article 19(1)(a) – Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression

Ø Section 3 – Insults to National Honour Act, 1960.

Ø Section 36 of Kerala Education Act, 1959.

Case Background:

Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala also known as the National Anthem Case 1986 is a landmark judgment that addressed the issue of the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression. The issue arose when three children belonging to Jehovah’s Witnesses sect were expelled from school for refusing to sing the National Anthem, which they claimed was against their religious beliefs.

The Children’s father filed a petition challenging the expulsion arguing that it violated their fundamental rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

Article 19(1) (a):

“All Citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression”

This Article in the context of arrest and detention procedures ensures that fundamental rights of the accused are not violated.

Article 25:

“All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right free to profess, practice and propagate religion”

This Article safeguards that arrests are conducted without infringing on personal liberties and religious freedoms.

Kerala Education Act, 1959 Section 36

“The Government may regulate the conditions of service of teachers and non-teaching staff in aided schools”

Facts of the case:

The facts of the case involved three children namely Bijoe, Binu Mol, and Bindu Emmanuel, who were believers of Jehovah’s Witnesses. They were students of school in Kerala. These three students did not participate in singing the National Anthem during the school morning assembly as it was against their Jehovah’s beliefs, which provided that the witnesses would participate only in religious offerings and none other. It was also noted that children never disrespected or insulted the National Anthem during the assembly but stood respectfully and quietly. On being noticed by MLA, the students were expelled from the school on the instructions of the schools, aggrieved by the expulsion, the father of the children filed a writ petition before the Single Bench Judge, Kerala High Court, who dismissed the same. The Division Bench of the High Court also rejected the appeal of the children. Thus, a Special Leave Petition was preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Petitioners Arguments:

The Petitioner in the case relied on their fundamental right to speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution. It provides that no citizen shall be denied the right to speech and expression, subject to the limitations provided under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. They contended that their religious beliefs do not allow them to participate in any offerings or recitals other than their God.

It was also noted that children never disrespected or insulted the National Anthem during the assembly but stood respectfully and quietly. It was never the intention of the Petitioners to disrespect the National Anthem. Thus, the expulsion from school on this pretext was unconstitutional and must be quashed.

Respondents Arguments:

The Contention raised by Respondents was that the witnesses violated Article 51A of the Constitution. Article 51A provides that it is the fundamental duty of every citizen to abide by the constitution and respect the National Flag and National Anthem, thereby disrespecting the National Anthem. It is argued that every student must participate in singing the National Anthem during a school assembly, and since petitioners did not follow such rules hence they were rightly expelled from the school.

Order of the Court:

· The Supreme Court gave a verdict under Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution giving freedom of speech and Expression by examining the education authorities in Kharak Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Article 25(1) gives the right to public order, morality, and health and to other provisions of part III and the Right to Freedom of Conscience to freely profess, practice, propagate religion are Fundamental Rights applicable to every citizen in a country.

· Making every student join in the singing of the National Anthem would violate their Jehovah’s Witness's religious belief and breach the rights under 19(1) (a) and Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution.

· The Supreme Court held that students are not guilty of not singing the National Anthem; they gave respect by standing up for attention and No legal provision obligates anyone to sing the National Anthem and it is not disrespectful or Unpatriotic to the Anthem.

· The Supreme Court set the High Court order aside and ordered to allow students again study in the school, without any hindrance; sentenced the appellant aside by the facts of the case

Conclusion:

The ruling highlighted the need to balance state authority with individual rights, ensuring that state actions do not infringe upon fundamental rights without a valid and reasonable justification. The Principles established in the Bijou Emmanuel case have not been challenged or reversed. The Judgement remains a landmark in protecting the rights to freedom of religion and expression and continues to guide the interpretation of these fundamental rights in India. By these judgments, we understand our patriotism towards our country and basic rights towards the people in a society are updating and evolving more about the Fundamental rights of every citizen in the country and people in a country are following their religious belief strongly. The importance of the National Anthem and its provisions regarding, our tradition taught us tolerance, our philosophy preached tolerance, and our constitution practices tolerance, hence we should not dilute it.

The Importance of National Anthem taught us tolerance, our philosophy preached tolerance and our constitution practices tolerance hence we should not dilute it.

References:

1. https://indiankanoon.org

2. https://notes.saralupsc.com

3. https://testbook.com

4. https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu

5. Constitution Of India, 1949

6. Author –Rubini B- Indian Journal of Legal Review, https://ijlr.iledu.in

7. https://ipleaders.in