Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala

FACTS

The three child-appellants, Bijoe, Binu Mol, and Bindu Emmanuel, are members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses religious denomination. They attended school where the National Anthem, ‘Jana Gana Mana’, was sung daily during the morning Assembly. They stood respectfully but did not sing, believing it was against the tenets of their religious faith. Following a public query by a Member of the Legislative Assembly, a government inquiry was conducted, which found the children law-abiding and respectful. However, under instructions from the Deputy Inspector of Schools, the Headmistress expelled the children from July 26, 1985. The children filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking to restrain the authorities from preventing them from attending school.

ISSUE

The issue involved in the current case pertained to whether the expulsion of the children due to their non-participation in singing the National Anthem was a violation of their Fundamental Rights under the Constitution.

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

• Protection of Religious Conscience (Article 25): This Hon'ble court observed that Jehovah's Witnesses constitute a religious denomination. Compelling a student to join in the singing of the National Anthem despite his "genuine, conscientious religious objection" would contravene the rights guaranteed by Article 25(1) (Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion).

• Test for Religious Belief: The court noted that Jehovah's witnesses globally do not sing National Anthems, though they show respect by standing. The key observation was:

  “...the question is not whether a particular religious belief or practice appeals to our reason or sentiment but whether the belief is genuinely and conscientiously held as part of the profession or practice of religion. If the belief is genuinely and conscientiously held it attracts the protection of Article 25 but subject, of course, to the inhibitions contained therein.”

• Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a)): The court observed that a government circular having no legal sanction violates Article 19(1)(a) if it forces the individual to participate in the singing of the National Anthem against their genuine religious objection. Compulsion to speak is as much a violation as the denial of the right to speak.

• National Duty vs. Fundamental Right: Article 51A(a) enjoins a fundamental duty on citizens to show respect to the National Anthem. However, no law has been made obliging anyone to sing the anthem. A person shows no disrespect to the National Anthem if he stands up respectfully but does not join in the singing.

• Conclusion: This court held that the expulsion of the children was a violation of their Fundamental Right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech and expression.

CASE LAWS REFERRED

• Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.: Confirmed that departmental or executive instructions having no statutory basis are not "a law" and cannot be used by the State to regulate or curtail fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19 or Article 21.

• Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar: Considered the validity of rules prohibiting certain forms of demonstration.

{pg 1304, 1503, Indian Constitutional Law, MP Jain 8th ed} {pg 134, 249 Constitution of India, VN Shukla, 14th ed}