Introduction

The case discussed in this article is of Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala.
The case revolved around the National Anthem of India. Before we go on to the discussion about this
case, let us understand afew things concerning our National Anthem. A National Anthem reflects the
people of the country, their struggles, their story through time, their traditions and about its people. It is
generaly a song which is patriotic, a musical composition which is officially recognised by the government
or the constitution of the country. In this case, students of a school in Kerala were expelled for not singing
the National Anthem. They followed the religious faith of Jehovah's witnesses and objected to singing the
"Jana Gana Mana" because it was allegedly against their religious beliefs. The case went to the Kerala
High Court when the father of the children filed awrit petition which was dismissed as the high courtfelt
that the Ntional Anthem did not have any words that could offend anybody's religious sentiments. The
father of the children then filed a special leavepetition in the Supreme Court and the apex court found that
the children's right to freedom of expression was violated on expulsion from the school, as even though
the children did not participate in singing the National Anthem, they did stand in respect when it was being
sung by others.
 Law on the National Anthem in India
In India, the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 is applicable in case of
the desecration or insult of
India's National Flag and other national symbols, the National Anthem, the map of India including
contempt to the
Indian Constitution. Section 3 of the Act has provision for the punishment of imprisonment for a term, which can extend
up to three years, or with fine, or with both, when anyone intentionally interrupts, prevents the singing of the National
Anthem or causes disturbances to any assembly engaged in its singing.
Apart from the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, the Ministry of Home Affairs has its own set of rules
on the National Anthem, which are supposed to be read as a part of the Act. The Ministry rules have been passed by
executive order. The rule states that the schools should begin their day with community singing of the National Anthem.
It alsostates that the audience has to stand in an attention position whenever the National Anthem is sung. The rules of
the Ministry of Home Affairs do not have any punishment prescribed in case of their violation. Anyway, in allcases the
Constitution takes precedence over the Ministry rules.
Singing the National Anthem, however, is not mandatory. There has been no judgement or directive by the Supreme
court or any legal or administrative direction which makes it mandatory to stand during the National Anthem. So, it boils
down to one's own patrioticfeeling and personal respect for the country. The law also is silent on the matter of whether
aperson should be sitting or standing while the National Anthem is being played.
 Bijoe Emmanuel case
The facts of the case are as follows:

The case pertains to 3 students - Bijou, BinuMol and Bindu Emmanuel who studied in a school in Kerala.mThey attended the school
everyday and even participated in the school assembly.
However, when the National Anthem was sung, they didn't sing the National Anthem along with the other students but stood in
attention.
Their two elder sisters also studied in the same school and followed the same practice and nobody ever objected to it.
One day in July 1985, amember of the legislative assembly attended the assembly and noticed that the 3children were not singing
the National Anthem and he thought that this behaviour of theirs was unpatriotic.
He raised this question in the Assembly and a commission was set up to investigate the matter. The commission reported that the
children were well behaved and law-abiding and did not ever show any disrespect to the National Anthem.
However the Head Mistress expelled the students from the school under the instructions of the Deputy Inspector of Schools.
The father of the children requested the headmistress to allow the children to attend their classes in school till they received a
government order/decision in the matter. The Headmistress expressed her inability to do so.

The objection of the Emmanuel chidren was not the language or the sentiments of the national Anthem. They did
did not
notsing
singonly
the
National Anthem, but they always stood in when the National Anthem was sung to show their respect to it. They
because of their belief and conviction that their religion did not permit them to join any rituals except it be in their prayers to Jehovah,
their God.
authorities. However,
Since the appellants were prevented from attending the school, they sought a restraining order passed by the
their writ petition was first rejected by asingle learned judge and then the division bench also rejected the prayer of the children.
petition in pursuant of Article 136 of the
After this, the case was appealed by the father, in the Supreme Court through a special leave
Constitution.
 Issues raised
1. If the expulsion of the 3 students from a school in Kerala is justified under Kerala Education Act (Section 36), Kerala Education
Rules(Rule 6 and 9) and Section 3 of Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971?
2. Whether the expulsion of the children from the school are consistent with the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)and Article 25 of
the Indian Constitution?

An overview of the Kerala High Court judgement

Prior to appealing to the Supreme Court, the 3 children filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking an order to restrain the authorities
from preventing them from attending school. The writ petition was first rejected by a single learned judge and then the division bench also
rejected the prayer of the children.
The decision of the High Court of Kerala was based on the Kerala Education Act. However, the Act does not have any such provision, but
Section 36 enables the Kerala Government to make rules to implement the provisions of the Act to provide a good standard of education
and courses in the Kerala schools. According to Rule 9 of Chapter 8 of the Act, good moral education is essential part of the curriculum
without wounding the religious and the social susceptibilities of the people in general. One of the moral characteristics stressed upon is
love for one's country. Students found guilty of intentional insubordination, mischief, fraud, mal-practice in examinations or conduct which
can negatively influence other students,can be suspendedor dismissed from the school under Rule 6 of Chapter 9.The Kerala education
authorities follow 2 circulars (of September 1961 and February 1970) issued by the Director of Public Instructions, Kerala. If the two
circulars are to be interpreted in such a way that every student has to join in singing the National Anthem despite his/her religious
constraint and objection, then such compulsion would violate the rights guaranteed by Aticle 19(1)\a) and Article 25(1) of the Indian
Constitution to the students.
 Appeal to the Supreme Court
An appeal was made to the Supreme Court through a special leave petition after the High Court of Kerala rejected
their writ petition.The arguments of both sides were reviewed.
The petitioners argued that they did not singthe Anthembut they stood up on such occasions to show their respect to
the national Anthem. In their defence the children said that their religion did not permit them to join in any such rituals
except it be in their prayers to Jehovah, their God. They did not hold their beliefs and conduct out of stubbornness.
They highlighted that singing the anthem was idolatry and this was considered as an act of unfaithfulness towards
their God. On the other hand, the respondents justified their actions according to the Kerala Education Act and Rules.
Supreme Court's judgement: The Supreme Court in this case gave the judgement that, Article 19(a), which
guarantees freedom of speech, and Article 25, which gives the right to freedom of conscience to freely profess,
practice and propagate religion are fundamental rights which are guaranteed to every citizen. Over here the reason to
compel each and every student to join in the singing of the National Anthem despite his/her genuine concern that it
would violate their religious belief clearly breaches the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25(1) of the
Constitution of India.

So, in this case, the Supreme Court held that the three students were not guilty of disrespect to the national Anthem
just because they refused to sing it. Moreover, they did stand in respect whenever the National Anthem was being
sung.
 Conclusion
The Supreme Court has given its ruling and cleared its stand on the issue of National Anthem but it
continues to surface now and then. Just last year in Mumbai, a family was forced to leave a cinema
hall because they didn't stand up for the National Anthem when it was being played on the screen.
Afew years back a school in Allahabad in Uttar Pradesh was shut by authorities and its owner,
Mohammad Zia-il-haq was arrested for not allowing the National Anthem to be sung at the school's
Independence Day celebrations. He claimed that the words, "bharata bhagya vidhata" were against
the teachings of Islam.
People have been charged with sedition in the past for not singing the National Anthem. The
legality of musical versions of the National Anthem, its appearance in movies and whether placing
one's hand on one's heart while the Anthem is being played amounts to an insult are some of the
other questions that keep coming up from time to time. People in a country should definitely respect
their national Anthem, but the method by which they choose to do so should not be forced on them
as long as it is one of the accepted methods.