Do students have to sing the National Anthem in school?

No. There is no legal duty to sing. Respectful standing is enough; refusing to sing for genuine belief is not an insult.

Were the expulsions lawful under Kerala law or the National Honour Act?

No. The Supreme Court found no legal basis to expel the students; their conduct was respectful and lawful.

Which fundamental rights protected the children here?

Freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and freedom of religion under Article 25.

What principle did the Court stress?

Tolerance. Our tradition, philosophy, and Constitution practice tolerance; the State must not dilute it.

What was the final direction of the Court?

The students were to be allowed to continue their studies without hindrance; their respectful conduct did not violate any law.

Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1987)

Quick Summary

Three schoolchildren respectfully stood during the National Anthem but did not sing it due to sincere religious belief. They were expelled. The Supreme Court said: there is no law forcing anyone to sing the Anthem. Respectful standing is not disrespect. Expulsion violated Articles 19(1)(a) and 25.

Core idea: Freedom of expression and religion protect quiet, respectful dissent.
Outcome: Students must be allowed to study without hindrance; tolerance is a constitutional value.

Issues

Were the expulsions justified under Kerala Education Act/Rules or the National Honour Act, 1971?
Did the expulsions violate Articles 19(1)(a) (speech) and 25 (religion)?

Rules

No law compels singing the National Anthem; respectful silence is not an insult.
State action must honour tolerance; our traditions and Constitution practice tolerance.
Education authorities cannot punish protected, respectful conduct.

Facts (Timeline)

CASE_TITLE

Three students—Bijoe, Binu Mol, and Bindu—attended school and morning assembly daily.
They stood respectfully but did not sing the National Anthem due to religious conviction.
An MLA noticed and called it “unpatriotic”; an inquiry later found the children well-behaved.
Despite this, the Headmistress expelled them on instruction from the Deputy Inspector of Schools.
Single Judge and Division Bench rejected relief; father appealed to the Supreme Court (Art. 136).

Timeline of expulsions and Supreme Court appeal in Bijoe Emmanuel

Arguments

Appellants (Students)

Respect shown by standing; no insult or disturbance.
Compelled singing violates Articles 19(1)(a) & 25.
No statute mandates singing the Anthem.

Respondents (State/School)

School discipline and respect for national symbols justify the rule.
Kerala Education provisions and National Honour Act relied on.

Judgment

Held

No offence: Not singing the Anthem is not disrespect if one stands respectfully.
Rights prevail: Expulsion violated Articles 19(1)(a) & 25; tolerance must guide the State.
Direction: Students to be allowed to study without hindrance.

Judgment: respectful standing protects freedom of conscience

Ratio Decidendi

Where conduct is respectful and based on sincere belief, the State cannot compel speech or ritual. The Constitution protects quiet dissent and religious conscience; tolerance is a binding value.

Why It Matters

Clarifies difference between respect and compulsion.
Protects minority faith practices in public schools.
Sets a high bar against punishing peaceful, respectful dissent.

Key Takeaways

No law compels singing the Anthem.
Respectful standing ≠ insult.
Articles 19(1)(a) & 25 protect conscience and expression.
Schools must act with tolerance.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “SIT—Stand, Intend, Tolerate”

Stand: Respect shown by standing.
Intend: No intent to insult; sincere belief.
Tolerate: Constitution demands tolerance, not compulsion.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Whether expelling students for not singing the Anthem, despite respectful standing, is lawful and constitutional.

Rule

No duty to sing; Articles 19(1)(a) & 25 protect expression and religion; tolerance guides State action.

Application

Students showed respect and acted from conscience; expulsion punishes protected conduct; statutes cited do not mandate singing.

Conclusion

Expulsions set aside; students to continue studies; respectful dissent upheld.

Glossary

Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression, including the right not to speak.
Article 25: Freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess and practice religion.
National Honour Act, 1971: Penalises intentional insult to national symbols; respectful silence is not an offence.