The landmark "Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala" case, where the Supreme Court of India ruled that forcing students to sing the national anthem violated their freedom of Religion and conscience; balanced religious freedom and patriotism.

The Supreme Court of India, in the appeal case of Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala (1986) arising out of W.A . No. 483 of 1985 in Kerala High Court., ruled that compelling children to sing the national anthem in school, even if it violates their sincerely held religious beliefs, is unconstitutional. The Court found that the expulsion of three children from their school for refusing to sing the Indian National Anthem, "Jana Gana Mana," infringed upon their fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression and freedom of conscience under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25(1) of the Indian Constitution, respectively.

Brief: Three children, namely, Bijoe Emmanuel, Binu Mol Emmanuel, and Bindu Emmanuel, who studied at a school in Kerala and were believers of a Christian sect known as “Jehovah’s Witnesses.” who were expelled from school for not singing the national anthem during morning assembly, as they refused to sing the anthem because they believed it contradicted their religious beliefs, which forbid them from participating in rituals not directed to Jehovah, their God.

The children stood respectfully while the anthem was sung, but did not sing it. The father of the children made an application requesting to take the children back into school but the school rejected his request, as a result he filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking remedy, howbeit, the prayer was rejected; first by a Single – Judge Bench, and later by a Division. The Kerala High Court dismissed the case, finding that the anthem could not offend religious sensibilities, and subsequently the children appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136, and while ruling in favor of the children, the Supreme Court held that expelling the children violated their fundamental right to freedom of religion and conscience under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. The court also ruled that not singing the anthem is not an offense under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, if the accused is not being disrespectful.

The Apex Court, invoking the principle of tolerance enshrined in the Indian Constitution, argued that true democracy lies in protecting the rights of even the smallest minorities. The Court emphasized that the sincerity of the children's belief was beyond question, as Jehovah’s Witnesses have consistently upheld this belief globally. They cited various international cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses and their refusal to participate in patriotic rituals due to their religious beliefs, highlighting the global consistency of their stance. The Court asserted that it was not their place to judge the validity of the belief itself but to determine if it was genuinely held.

The Court further held that while Article 51-A(a) of the Constitution encourages respect for the national anthem, it does not mandate singing it. It added "It is true Art. 51-A(a) of the Constitution enjoins a duty on every citizen of India "to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem." Proper respect is shown to the National Anthem by standing up when the National Anthem is sung. It will not be right to say that disrespect is shown by not joining in the singing". Thus, they clarified that standing respectfully during the anthem constitutes sufficient respect. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the students' silence did not qualify as an offense under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, as it neither prevented nor disrupted the singing of the anthem.
The Court also rejected the Kerala Education Authorities' reliance on departmental circulars mandating participation in the anthem, stating that such circulars lacked statutory force and could not supersede fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. They emphasized that any restriction on fundamental rights must be based on a law passed by the legislature, not mere executive or departmental instructions.

Justice Chinnappa Reddy, delivering the judgment, concluded with a powerful statement: “Our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy preaches tolerance; our constitution practices tolerance; let us not dilute it”., and conclusion the supreme court held that “We, therefore, find that the Fundamental Rights of the appellants under Art. 19(1)(a) and 25(1) have been infringed and they are entitled to be protected. We allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and direct the respondent authorities to re-admit the children into the school, to permit them to pursue their studies without hindrance and to facilitate the pursuit of their studies by giving them the necessary facilities. We only wish to add: our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy preaches tolerance; our constitution practices tolerance; let us not dilute it." The judgment stands as a testament to the strength of the Indian Constitution in upholding individual rights, even when they clash with perceived notions of patriotism.

CORAM: - JUSTICE O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JUSTICE M.M. DUTT CASE DETAILS: Special Leave Petition (Civil). Diary Number 69728/1986 BETWEEN: - BIJOE EMMANUEL & ORS. vs STATE OF KERALA & ORS. DOJ: - 11.08.1986