Introduction
A landmark ruling in Indian constitutional law that addresses the issue of the national anthem’s forced singing in schools is the result of the historic Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala case. It was against their religious traditions to sing hymns or songs other than those contained in their own religious texts, thus three Jehovah’s Witnesses students rejected to take part in the national anthem.
In a decision issued on August 11, 1986, the Indian Supreme Court reaffirmed and affirmed the basic freedom of religion, which is guaranteed by Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. The court determined that the Indian Constitution guaranteed the students’ freedom of conscience as well as their ability to publicly declare, practise, and propagate their faith. It was thus appropriate for them to refuse to sing the national anthem because of their religious convictions. The court further emphasised how important it is to protect people’s constitutionally granted freedom to exercise and maintain their own faith. The decision underlined how important it is to respect the values of the Constitution while also recognising and respecting other faith traditions. It’s crucial to keep in mind, though, that the court also stated that religious freedom is not unrestrained and may be subject to reasonable restrictions for the purposes of public health, morals, and order.
This decision is noteworthy because it highlights how crucial it is for religious practices and beliefs to be respected in a democracy. It acknowledges that the right to profess one’s religion freely is a vital one that has to be respected and safeguarded. It emphasises even more how important it is to have a diverse, inclusive society that preserves the values of the Constitution.Thus, Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala is a notable case supporting the protection of religious liberty in India as well as the need to balance individual rights with the larger objectives of a diverse and heterogeneous society.
FACTS
Three Indian students were expelled from their school in 1985 for refusing to sing the country’s song, “Jana Gana Mana,” and for sticking out for their Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs. In his writ suit, their father claimed that their expulsion had infringed their basic rights to freedom of expression and religion, as protected by Articles 19 and 25 of the Indian Constitution. The Kerala State High Court heard the complaint. Nevertheless, the court dismissed the case, ruling that the national anthem’s ideas and language could not violate someone’s religious convictions. In order to request a review of the ruling, the father subsequently filed a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution with the Supreme Court of India. The current discussion in India about the national anthem’s mandatory singing in schools is illuminated by this case. Some contend that it upholds individual liberties and unity while opponents claim it is a sign of nationalism. In instances such as these, it is crucial to comprehend and honour all viewpoints.
ISSUES
- Whether the expulsion of the children from the school infringes the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution?
- Whether the expulsion of the children from the school is justified as per Kerala Education Act (Section36) and the rules there under Section 3 of Prevention to National Honour Act 1974.
ARGUMENTS
- Arguments by the petitioners
- The appellant alleged that students never showed any disrespect for their homeland or the national anthem, but instead constantly stood respectfully during its performance.
- They didn’t sing only because it was against their Jehovah’s Witnesses’ religious beliefs, which forbade them from doing so.
- The appellant also questioned whether it was appropriate to expel pupils. They have questioned whether the students’ basic rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25(1) of the Indian Constitution are violated by such expulsions.
- Arguments by the Respondents
- According to the respondents, the National Anthem was not sung by students which indicates their lack of patriotism and disrespect towards both the National Anthem and our country.
- The Kerala Education Act of 1959 and Kerala Education Rule of 1959, Chapter IX Rule 6, were used by them as justification for their actions.
DECISION
The Supreme Court of India firmly upheld the basic rights guaranteed by Articles 19(a) and 25 of the Indian Constitution in its landmark decision in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986). The court emphasised that all people are naturally endowed with the freedom of expression (Article 19(a)) and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion (Article 25). The issue included forcing students to sing the National Anthem against their religious convictions, which was considered a breach of their constitutional rights. The Supreme Court found that the three students were not guilty of insulting the National Anthem since they had chosen to politely abstain from singing it because of their faith. Most importantly, the court dismissed the notion that the State of Kerala’s Department of Education’s regulatory measures, which required the singing of the anthem, were binding laws, considering them to be only “departmental instructions” with no legal authority. Based on prior rulings, including Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1963 SC 1295), the court emphasised that any limitations on the liberties delineated in Article 19 have to be grounded in a statute that possesses legal weight, rather than a simple administrative or departmental directive.
In addition, the Supreme Court determined that the students’ rights to free speech and religion were violated by their expulsion from the school. As a result, it reversed the ruling of the High Court and ordered the State of Kerala to allow the students to rejoin. In its closing remarks, the court emphasised the significance of tolerance, which is ingrained in Indian culture, philosophy, and constitutional law. It also urged the preservation of this virtue. As a crucial precedent, the ruling in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala upholds the fundamental constitutional ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity while reiterating the delicate balance between individual rights and state interests.
ANALYSIS
The Indian Supreme Court showed its unwavering dedication to upholding fundamental rights in the historic case of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala. It paid particular attention to the clauses found in Article 19(a) (freedom of expression) and Article 25 (freedom of religion) of the Indian Constitution. The analysis shows a careful investigation of the legitimacy of limitations on these rights, the Indian Constitution’s protection of religious freedom, and the international commitments to defend these rights. On August 11, 1986, the case was decided. It concerned the expulsion of three Jehovah’s Witnesses students for their religious objections to singing the national anthem.
After a careful examination, the court upheld the basic right to religious freedom guaranteed by Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. It acknowledged that the Appellants’ exercise of their fundamental rights to freedom of conscience and religion was demonstrated by their reluctance to take part in the singing of the national anthem. The court stressed that the appellants’ respectful standing throughout the song was not immoral nor indecent, but rather conformed to the definitions of morality and decency found in the Constitution. Significantly, the ruling examined whether limitations on basic rights—described in Article 19(2) of the Constitution—are reasonable. The court correctly determined that none of the established justifications for reasonable limits applied in this situation, with the exception of issues pertaining to morality or decency. The state’s sovereignty, integrity, security, public order, or any other listed interest was not threatened by the appellants’ activities.
In addition, the court emphasised that the Appellants’ practices and beliefs were protected by providing a comprehensive examination of freedom of religion under Article 25. It acknowledged Article 25 as an article of religion, demonstrating the idea that, according to the nation’s Constitution, even a small minority has the freedom to define itself. The ruling made a clear distinction between topics pertaining to religion and secular affairs, holding that the state could not control matters falling under the former unless doing so was necessary to protect the public interest. The ruling also made reference to international commitments, emphasising the necessity of upholding religious freedom as required by the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It emphasised the need for a secular, democratic state to abstain from meddling in religious affairs until absolutely required.
In summary, Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala outlines the delicate balance between individual liberty and state interests and is a shining example of constitutional law. The ruling supports the tolerant spirit of the constitution while also upholding the core principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity. It creates a precedent that defends people against unjustified government interference with their religious practices and provides a significant model for the defence of constitutional rights in a varied and diverse society.