Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala (1987) – Freedom of Religion vs National Anthem Duty

In Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala (1987), three school children from the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith were expelled from a Kerala school because they did not sing the National Anthem. They always stood up respectfully during the anthem but kept silent because their religion allowed worship only to God.

The Supreme Court held that forcing them to sing the National Anthem would violate their freedom of conscience and religion under Article 25. The Court also said that fundamental duties cannot override fundamental rights. Standing respectfully during the anthem is enough to show respect, and the State cannot punish students only because they follow their sincere religious belief.

1. Is singing the National Anthem compulsory?
   Can the State force students to sing the anthem even when it directly goes against their genuine religious belief?
2. Does not singing mean disrespect?
   If students stand silently but respectfully during the anthem, does it still amount to disrespect or insult to the National Anthem and the nation?
3. Can fundamental duties limit fundamental rights?
   Can the State rely on Article 51A(a) (duty to respect the National Anthem) to take away or restrict the students’ Article 25 right?
4. Is there any public order problem?
   Did the behaviour of these children create any disturbance to public order, morality or discipline so that the State could justify a restriction on their right?

• Article 25(1) – Freedom of conscience and religion
  Every person has the right to follow, practice and express their religion, subject to public order, morality and health.
• Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of speech and expression
  Includes the freedom not to speak in certain situations. This connects to the choice of remaining silent while standing respectfully.
• Article 51A(a) – Fundamental duty
  It is the duty of every citizen to respect the Constitution, the National Flag and the National Anthem. However, this duty is not directly enforceable in the same way as a fundamental right.
• Reasonable restrictions
  Fundamental rights can be restricted only on specific grounds, like public order or morality, and the State must prove that such a restriction is really needed.

• School assembly practice
  In a Kerala school, every morning the National Anthem “Jana Gana Mana” was played in the assembly. All students were expected to stand and sing.
• Jehovah’s Witness children
  Three siblings – Bijoe, Binu and Bindu – belonged to the Christian sect known as Jehovah’s Witnesses. Their faith teaches that worship and special honour should be given only to God.
• Silent but respectful
  During the anthem, these children always stood up, kept quiet, and did not sing. They believed that singing or saluting the anthem would go against their religious belief.
• Principal notices and reacts
  The Principal noticed that they were not singing. The school authorities treated this as disrespect to the National Anthem and as a violation of the fundamental duty to respect it.
• School expels the children
  The children were expelled from school. The reason given was that they were not obeying instructions and were allegedly insulting the National Anthem.
• Parents challenge the decision
  The parents argued that the children were not insulting the nation at all. They were only following their sincerely held religious belief while still showing respect by standing.
• Case reaches the Supreme Court
  The matter finally came before the Supreme Court of India, which had to balance national honour, fundamental duties and the children’s fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court decided in favour of the three children. It held that expelling them from school only because they did not sing the National Anthem was unconstitutional.

• Fundamental right violation
  Compelling the children to sing, when their sincere religious belief did not allow it, violated Article 25(1). The Court treated their belief as genuine and not as an excuse.
• Respectful standing is enough
  The Court clarified that respect is not equal to singing. Quietly standing when the anthem is played shows sufficient respect; there was no insult to the nation.
• Fundamental duties vs rights
  The Court stated that fundamental duties are important but not directly enforceable. They cannot be used to cut down fundamental rights.
• No public order problem
  The State could not show any disturbance or disorder caused by the children. So no reasonable restriction could be justified.
• Direction to readmit
  The Court directed the school to readmit the children and allow them to attend the school without forcing them to sing the anthem.

The core legal principle from this case can be put in simple words:

When a person sincerely follows a religious belief, the State cannot force that person to act against that belief in the name of nationalism, so long as they do not disturb public order or insult the nation.

• Freedom of religion is real only if it protects unpopular or minority practices.
• Respect for the National Anthem can be shown by standing in silence; singing is not the only valid form of respect.
• Fundamental duties cannot override fundamental rights; the Constitution places rights at the centre of the relationship between citizen and State.

• Strengthens secularism
  The case shows that Indian secularism protects minority religious beliefs. The State cannot demand forced unity by crushing conscience.
• Guides schools and institutions
  Schools must respect the fundamental rights of students. Discipline cannot become a reason to throw out genuine religious freedom.
• Clarifies role of fundamental duties
  Duties are reminders, not weapons. They cannot be used as a legal stick to beat down rights.
• Teaches a deeper idea of patriotism
  True patriotism is not about forcing uniform behaviour. It is about protecting diversity under the Constitution while still honouring the nation.

1. Standing silently during the National Anthem can still be respectful.
2. Article 25 protects sincere religious beliefs, even when they are unpopular.
3. Fundamental duties cannot be used to crush fundamental rights.
4. The State must show real harm to public order to restrict rights.
5. Bijoe Emmanuel is a key case on secularism, nationalism and individual liberty.

Mnemonic: “ STAND FOR FAITH”

• STAND → Children stood during anthem.
• FOR → They acted for their religion.
• FAITH → Court protected faith over force.

3-Step Hook to Remember the Case

1. Picture the scene – A school assembly, anthem playing, three children standing silently, hands by their sides.
2. Add the conflict – Principal gets angry, says “You must sing!” Parents say “They are only following their religion.”
3. Finish with the Court – Supreme Court steps in and says, “As long as they respect the anthem and do not disturb public order, you cannot force them to sing.”

Freedom of conscience

Your inner freedom to decide what is right or wrong for you in matters of belief and faith.

Jehovah’s Witnesses

A Christian group that believes special honour and worship must be given only to God, and not to any symbol, flag or anthem.

Fundamental rights

Basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution (like Articles 14–32) that protect individuals against State actions.

Fundamental duties

Moral obligations listed in the Constitution (Article 51A) to remind citizens how they should behave, but they are generally not directly enforceable in court.

Public order

A condition where peace and normal life in society is not disturbed; no violence, no major unrest or disruption.

• Shirur Mutt Case – Lays down the idea of essential religious practices and limits State interference in religious matters.
• Govt. of India vs George Kurian (National Anthem cases) – Deals with respect for the National Anthem and acceptable conduct.
• Other Article 25 cases – Help you compare how the Court balances religious freedom with public order and social interests.