Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors. vs State of Kerala & Ors (1987)

Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors. vs State of Kerala & Ors.
(1987 AIR 748, 1986 SCR (3) 518)

ABSTRACT

The expulsion of school children for refusing to perform the national anthem, according to the Supreme Court of India, violated their right to freedom of expression. Due to their refusal to sing the Indian national anthem because it went against their Jehovah's Witness religion, three schoolchildren were expelled. Their representative claimed that the expulsion violated their basic rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression under Articles 19 and 25, respectively, of the Indian Constitution. A restriction on the right to free speech, according to the Court, must be supported by a statute. However, there were no legal clauses requiring people to sing the national song, and Kerala's Department of Education lacked the authority to compel students to take part.

Keywords: Supreme court of India, freedom of expression, Indian, national anthem, religion, violated, Constitution, Kerala, free speech, statute, articles, department.

Case no. 1987 AIR 748

Petitioner: Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors. (Bijoe, Binumol, Bindu Emmanuel)

Respondent: State of Kerala & Ors.

Date of judgement: Decided on 11 August, 1986

Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of India

Bench & Quorum: Justice Reddy O. Chinnappa

Acts & Sections involved:

· Indian Constitution, 1950 Art. 19(1)(a), Art. 25(a)

· Prevention of insult to National Honour Act, 1960

· Section 3 Kerala Education Act, 1959 with the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 Section 36, Chapter 9 Rule 6

INTRODUCTION

The Fundamental Rights enshrined in our Constitution frequently become the subject of controversy due to their very character. The State is required to protect every citizen's fundamental rights, even though they are not absolute, barring exceptional situations. Speaking generally, Article 19(1)'s reference to the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression highlights this as a significant Fundamental Right. The right can be practised without interference if its limitations are reasonable. But what if this activity goes against the principles of patriotism? Is it morally and legally acceptable to prioritise one's basic rights over patriotism, and if so, how far? Or are the two wholly incompatible with one another? Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, a significant case that was brought up against the Indian judiciary in this matter, attempted to address all of these issues and clear the way for further references.

The Indian National Anthem was at the centre of the dispute. Let's first grasp a few things about our national anthem before moving on to the discussion of this case. Students from a school in Kerala were expelled in this instance for failing to perform the national anthem.

They adhered to the Jehovah's Witnesses religion, and they claimed that chanting "Jana Gana Mana" went against their spiritual principles. The father of the children brought the case before the Kerala High Court, but it was dismissed because the high court believed that the National Anthem did not contain any language that could offend anyone's religious feelings. The children's father then petitioned the Supreme Court for a special leave, and the high court ruled that the children's expulsion from school violated their right to freedom of expression because, despite not singing the National Anthem themselves, they did stand in respect when it was being sung by others.

BACKGROUND

Bijoe, Binu, and Bindu were three students at a school in Ettumanoor, close to Kottayam, who were expelled for refusing to sing the national song of India. They did, however, always stand silently during the school gathering. Because it went against their Jehovah's Witnesses religious beliefs, their father had asked them not to salute the flag or sing the national song (GOD JEHOVAH). They submitted a writ case to the High Court of Kerala State through their representative, asking the court to enjoin the government from prohibiting their attendance at school.

They claimed that their expulsion violated their fundamental rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech under Articles 19 and 25, respectively, of the Indian Constitution. The High Court denied the petition on the grounds that the national song cannot contain any language or ideas that are offensive to any religious beliefs. They then challenged the ruling to the Indian Supreme Court.

FACTS

1. The case involves three pupils from a school in Kerala named Bijou, Binu Mol, and Bindu Emmanuel. Every day they went to school, and they even took part in the ceremony. They did not, however, sing along with the other pupils when the national anthem was played; instead, they stood at attention. On the Deputy Inspector of Schools' orders, the Head Mistress expelled the pupils from the institution. They refrained from singing because they were adamant that they were not allowed to participate in any rituals outside of their prayers to Jehovah, their God, according to their faith. The appellants requested a restraining order be issued by the officials because they were unable to attend the school. The father then filed a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

• Does the expulsion of the children from school violate the rights provided by Articles 19(1) and 25 of the Indian Constitution?

• Is the expulsion of pupils from a school justified under the Kerala Education Act (Section 36) and its Rules, as well as Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Ø APPELLANTS

The appellants contended that their refusal to perform the national anthem was justified by their sincere belief and conviction that their religion forbade them from participating in any rituals other than praying to Jehovah their God. Furthermore, they stressed that singing the song was idolatry and a betrayal of their God.

Ø RESPONDENTS

The respondents claimed that their activities were legal because they were in accordance with the Kerala Education Act and Rules. Furthermore, they claimed that singing the national song did not offend any religious sensibilities.

AN OVERVIEW OF THE KERALA JUDGEMENT

Prior to filing an appeal with the Supreme Court, the three children petitioned the High Court for an order stopping the authorities from preventing them from attending school. The writ petition was initially dismissed by a solitary learned judge, and the children's prayer was also dismissed by the division bench.

The Kerala High Court's decision was founded on the Kerala Education Act. However, the Act makes no such provision; however, Section 36 empowers the Kerala Government to make regulations to execute the Act's provisions to provide a high standard of education and courses in Kerala schools. According to Rule 9 of Chapter 8 of the Act, good moral education is an important part of the curriculum that does not offend the religious and social sensibilities of the public. One of the moral qualities emphasised is love for one's nation. Students who are found guilty of intentional insubordination, mischief, fraud, examination malpractice, or behaviour that has a negative impact on other students may be suspended or dismissed from school under Rule 6 of Chapter 9.

APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT

After the High Court of Kerala denied their writ case, an appeal was filed with the Supreme Court via a special leave petition. Both parties' arguments were examined.

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Article 19(a), which protects the right to free speech, and Article 25, which protects the right to freedom of conscience, including the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate one's religion, are basic rights that are protected for all citizens. Here, the requirement that all students participate in the singing of the national anthem despite their sincere reservations that it would go against their religious beliefs plainly infringes on their right to freedom of religion as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution.

The Supreme Court ruled that the three students in this instance were not disrespecting the National Anthem simply by refusing to sing it. Additionally, whenever the National Anthem was played, they stood in reverence. This decision was justified on the grounds that singing the National Anthem is not insulting of the Anthem and is not required by law. The students must be able to attend class at the school without interference, the judge ruled. Additionally, the court noted that since our traditions and ideology all promote tolerance and our constitution enshrines it, we shouldn't water it down.

JUDGEMENT

In the case of Bijoe Emmanuel v. the State of Kerala, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the High Court of Kerala on August 11, 1986. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional to expel the kids because of their sincerely held religious beliefs. No legal provision obligates anyone to perform, according to Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy. The children must be readmitted, the court instructed the school administration.

Because it affirms that no one can be legally forced to violate his conscientiously held religious views, Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala is profoundly important. Compel all students to participate in the National Anthem despite their sincere, conscientious religious objections would obviously violate their rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25(1) of the Indian Constitution, the court ruled. The Court went on to say that "the true test of a true democracy is the ability of even a small minority to find its identity under the law of the land" "Our personal views and reactions are irrelevant," Justice Reddy continued.

RATIO DECIDENDI

The legal standard upon which a judicial decision is founded is known as Ratio Decidendi. It is enforceable in lower tribunals. It serves as the justification for the court's ruling. It shows how the Articles 25, 26 & 51 A should be interpreted and observes the command of Bible.

OBITER DICTA

An obiter dictum is a judge's opinion that is not immediately related to case law and is not crucial to the outcome of the case. Since it is not sufficiently pertinent, it is not binding. The court's observation regarding American and Australian courts' views that restrictions should be placed on the right to practise one's faith for the sake of morality, public order, and societal protection.

ANALYSIS

o The Appellants have the basic right to express their faith by refusing to participate in any other ritual other than that of their God. However, the question is whether not participating in such singing can harm the interests of the state's sovereignty and integrity, security, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence, which is mentioned as a reasonable restriction under Article 19 (2) of the Indian Constitution. Indeed, the Appellants only follow their beliefs while also showing respect for the National Anthem and Flag by standing respectfully in the assembly.

o As a result, their behaviour cannot be deemed immoral or indecent. Because their freedom of speech and expression did not violate any of the reasons listed in clause 2 of Article 19, the state cannot impose any reasonable restrictions on it.

o Apart from the Constitution, International Charters also advocate for people's religious liberties. According to Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948; Article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966; and Section 19 of the Indian Constitution. It is argued that, with minor modifications, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration and Articles 18 (1) and 18 (3) of the ICCPR have been properly represented in Article 25 of the Constitution.

o Under Article 25, the Appellants have the right to practice, profess, and spread their belief because it was the dictate of their conscience not to participate in any other ritual except in their prayers to Jehovah their God.

o Though the author agrees that the Supreme Court rendered a constitutionally just and fair decision in this case, it passed up an opportunity to develop sound and detailed jurisprudence on fundamental rights of speech and expression, religious freedom, and fundamental duties of patriotism. As a result, the accompanying analysis attempts to fill the void left by the decision.

CONCLUSION

The ever-changing interpretations of the law over the years have always been a step in the correct direction. However, this is not always the case. However, in the case of Bijoe Emmanuel, it is obvious that the argument over singing the national anthem has finally been settled. The Supreme Court ruled that there was no legal requirement for anyone to perform the national anthem, and that this did not constitute disrespect. In addition, the 1971 Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act was not enacted.

On the surface, it seemed unreasonable to expel students who were well-behaved, who showed due respect to the national anthem by standing when it was sung, but only refused to participate in the singing out of genuine conscientious belief.

Furthermore, the goal here was to support not only the honour and integrity of the National Symbol, but also of those whose religious beliefs are like those of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The Supreme Court's guidelines on this subject neither impose any restrictions on the fundamental rights bestowed on any person nor contradict any such legislation of the land.

However, there are several challenges that pose a looming threat to the society established on the foundation of this legal framework. Despite these challenges, the government's proposed mandate to create a society governed by these laws will not jeopardise citizens' basic rights. Nonetheless, the moral debate surrounding the problem will continue rather than diminish. However, there is no denying that such an order is lawful on all counts.