BIJOE EMMMAUEL V STATE OF KERELA

AUTHOR: HARSHITHA MYNENI

FACTS

The conflict between the petitioner’s Jehovah’s Witness beliefs and the requirement of the
school where their children were enrolled to salute the flag and sing the national anthem is the
factual background of the case of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala1 (1986). A Christian sect
called Jehovah’s Witnesses is well recognized for its distinctive theological beliefs, which
include refraining from certain actions they see as showing devotion to anything other than
their God. The salute to the flag and the singing of the national song are two examples of these
acts. The national flag was raised and the national song was performed during a school
assembly at the petitioners’ children’s government-run school in Kerala, as is typical in many
schools to foster a sense of pride and solidarity in one’s country.
The children of the petitioners, however, decided not to take part in these events and skipped
the flag salute and national hymn out of respect for their religious beliefs. Due to the kids’ lack
of engagement, the school administration adopted a tough policy, and as a result, the petitioners’
kids were expelled from the school. The school’s decision was based on the justification that
requiring pupils to participate in these events was essential to upholding school policies and
crucial for instilling in them a feeling of patriotism and a sense of national togetherness.
The main legal question, in this case, was whether the school’s mandated national song and
flag salute requirements infringed on students’ basic right to freedom of religion, which is
protected by Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners claimed that the school’s
requirement violated their constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of religion since their
religious convictions forbade them from doing acts that symbolized allegiance to any being
other than their God.
The balance between a person’s freedom to practice their religion and the state’s interest in
fostering national emblems and unity via required acts of patriotism at educational institutions
was a key constitutional issue raised by this case. The case brought to light the conflict between
religious liberties and the more general social goals of promoting patriotism in people.

ISSUES RAISED

1. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION:
   Instead of freedom of speech and expression, the case of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala is
   largely focused on the subject of religious freedom. The main legal issues, in this case, concern
   a person’s freedom to practice their religion, particularly when that freedom clashes with a
   school’s requirement to take part in activities like saluting the flag and singing the national
   anthem that the individuals deem to be incompatible with their religious beliefs. The Bijoe
   Emmanuel issue touches on larger constitutional values, such as individual liberty and the
   acceptance of different religious views in a democratic society, even if it does not directly
   involve freedom of speech and expression. However, the Supreme Court’s decision principally
   relates to the right to religious freedom (Article 25 of the Indian Constitution) and, to a lesser degree, the right to an education (Article 21-A )
2. It is important to remember that Article 19 of the Indian Constitution’s protection of freedom of speech and expression covers a wide variety of rights, including the right to express one’s opinions, beliefs, and ideas and the right to remain silent. This freedom may be exercised in a variety of situations, including those involving political speech, creative expression, and information transmission. The main legal issue in the Bijoe Emmanuel case concerned whether or not students’ religious convictions might forbid them from performing the national song and flag salute, which were required by the school. The emphasis was on the tension that exists between the right to practice one’s religion and the promotion of national symbols, especially in the setting of a public school. The Supreme Court’s decision, in this case, helped to reconcile these legal concerns by emphasizing the preservation of religious freedom even when participating in activities that the state deems patriotic. It serves as an example of how different fundamental rights may intersect and require careful consideration when conflicts arise, even though the case itself did not explicitly address freedom of speech and expression. It emphasizes the importance of constitutional principles The constitution of India,1950 that safeguard individual rights, including the right to practice one’s religion freely, within a diverse and democratic society.

1. FREEDOM OF RELIGION:
   In the case of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), the basic right to freedom of religion,
   as protected by Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, is at the center of contention. In this issue,
   the freedom to practice one’s religion conflicts with a school’s demand that pupils take part in
   acts that represent allegiance to the country, such as saluting the flag and singing the national
   anthem. The primary legal question, in this case, is whether the petitioners’ right to freely
   practice their religion without interference or force is violated by the state’s requirement that
   they take part in these patriotic activities. The petitioners, who were Jehovah’s Witnesses, were
   forbidden by their religious convictions from partaking in any actions that may be seen as
   deifying anything other than their God. For them, saluting the flag and singing the national
   song amounted to acts of devotion that went against the principles of their religions. This
   instance highlights the value of respecting various religious views within a democratic system.
   It explores the delicate balancing act between a person’s freedom of religion and the state’s
   goals of promoting national symbols and encouraging a feeling of community among
   individuals. In this situation, important legal factors relating to the right to freedom of religion
   include:
   i. The scope of religion:
   The case demonstrates the reach of Article 25, which protects the freedom to profess, practice,
   and spread one’s faith. It puts the issue of whether this right covers behaviors seen as displays
   of allegiance, such as saluting the national flag, front, and center.
   ii. State’s Goals vs. Individual Rights:
   This case calls for an analysis of how far the state’s goal of fostering patriotism and national
   identity may be achieved without violating a person’s strongly held religious convictions.
   iii. Plurality and Tolerance:
   By examining whether the state can strike a balance between developing a common national
   identity and respecting individual religious views, the case highlights India’s commitment to
   religious plurality and tolerance.
2. FREEDOM OF EDUCATION:
   The right to freedom of religion is the main issue in the 1986 case of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State
   of Kerala, but there is also an implied worry about the right to education in this situation. The

background of this case is influenced by the right to education, a fundamental constitutional
right that guarantees all people access to education. Whether the school’s conduct, especially
the expulsion of the petitioners’ children for refusing to salute the flag and sing the national
song, violated their right to an education is the main legal question at stake in this case. Children
between the ages of 6 and 14 are guaranteed the right to education as a basic right by Article
21-A of the Indian Constitution, which was added by the 86th Amendment. This amendment
recognizes the importance of education in ensuring that people grow fully and in advancing
social justice. The removal of the petitioners’ kids from school in the Bijoe Emmanuel case can
make people wonder how far a school can go in terms of disciplinary measures when a kid
refuses to participate in anything because of their religion.
The question of whether these practices violate the right to education is raised, especially in
light of the goal of the right to education to assure equality and avoid discrimination. The
indirect impact on the right to education adds another level of complication, even if the case’s
major concerns are freedom of religion (Article 25) and the balance of religious rights with the
promotion of national symbols. The case discusses how the government, through its
educational institutions, may strike a balance between its goals of fostering a feeling of
patriotism and national unity and students’ basic rights, especially their freedom to practice 9
Ibid 12 their faith without being forced to.
The Bijoe Emmanuel case serves as a reminder that educational institutions must carefully
consider the parameters within which disciplinary actions can be taken while respecting the
fundamental rights of students, including their right to education. This is true even though the
case does not specifically address the right to education as its main issue. It emphasizes the
significance of balancing the many rights protected by the Constitution, ensuring that disputes
resulting from disparate ideas and values do not adversely influence students’ education.

CONTENTIONS

APPEALANTS CONTENTIONS

1. Respectful Conduct
   The appellant claims that the kids regularly acted respectfully while the national anthem was
   played. They would stand at attention for the recital of the national anthem and never show any
   disrespect for the song or their country. This statement emphasizes the fact that the kids were
   not participating in any acts that may be viewed as disloyal or disrespectful during the performance of the national anthem. This remark is significant because it implies that the pupils were not purposefully rude or rebellious during the rendition of the national anthem. They were just refusing to sing it because it conflicted with their religious convictions. This is a major issue in the appellant’s case, implying that the student’s conduct was motivated by religious belief rather than a nationalistic or anti-patriotic attitude.
2. Religious Beliefs
   The pupils’ unwillingness to sing the national anthem was mostly attributed to their Jehovah’s
   Witness beliefs. There are strong limitations to patriotic and nationalistic deeds within the
   Jehovah’s Witnesses religious tradition, and believers are frequently barred from engaging in
   such events. This includes refraining from singing national songs or saluting national flags,
   which may be seen as a sort of idolatry.
   This argument is significant because it poses a fundamental conflict between the student’s
   religious beliefs and the national need to sing the song. It wasn’t just a question of choice for
   the kids; it was a religious requirement. This aspect of the case highlights the complexities of
   balancing individual religious freedom versus collective national interest, especially in settings
   where religious practices appear to contradict patriotic norms.
3. Legal Concern
   The appeal raises an important legal question: Are the students’ expulsions justified under the
   Indian Constitution, and do these expulsions violate their Fundamental Rights? The appellant
   specifically asks whether the students’ acts are protected by two major sections of the Indian
   Constitution: 14
   3.1.Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech and
   expression to all people. The question of whether the students’ reluctance to sing the national
   anthem is a proper use of this basic freedom is at the heart of the debate. The appellant will
   probably contend that their quiet protest qualifies as speech since it expresses their opinions
   and is thus protected by the Constitution.
   3.2.Article 25(1) This provision safeguards the right to freely profess, practice, and promote
   religion as well as the freedom of conscience. By bringing up this issue, the appellant suggests
   that the student’s refusal to sing the national anthem is motivated by their religious convictions
   and that requiring them to do so violates their fundamental right to freedom of religion.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTIONS

1. Claim of Unpatriotic Behavior by Respondents
   In this case, the respondents assert that the student’s refusal to sing the National Anthem reflects
   their lack of patriotism and respect for both the National Anthem and the nation. This argument
   is crucial to the respondents’ position because it suggests that the student’s reluctance to sing
   the National Anthem is not motivated by moral or religious convictions but rather by dissent
   or contempt rather than either of these. This claim is significant since it represents the other
   side of this legal issue. The respondents contend that the student’s refusal to sing the National
   Anthem is an expression of unpatriotic sentiments, which could potentially undermine the
   students’ claim to protection of their religious freedoms. The appellant contends that the
   student’s actions were motivated by their religious beliefs.
2. Legal support based on the Kerala Education Act and Regulations
   The Kerala Education Act of 1959 and the Kerala Education Rules of 1959, notably Chapter
   IX, Rule 6, are cited by the respondents to support their conduct and the expulsion of the
   children. This is an important part of the responders’ argument. They are perhaps contending
   that the actions taken against the kids have legal support because of these educational statutes
   and regulations. Examining the exact provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules, notably
   Chapter IX, Rule 6, is crucial to comprehend the ramifications of this statement. It could
   include information on the prerequisites for taking part in events like singing the national
   anthem and the penalties for breaking them.
   According to the respondents’ reasoning, which is based on the Kerala Education Act and
   Rules, they are acting legally when they take disciplinary action against the children. This
   would be a crucial component of their response to the appellant’s claim that the kids’ basic
   rights have been violated. The respondents essentially claim that their conduct was legal and
   compliant with accepted educational rules.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court of India issued a historic decision in the case of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State
of Kerala (1986) that was based on the ideas of religious freedom, individual rights, and the
delicate harmony between public policy and private convictions. The petitioners, in this case,

were Jehovah’s Witnesses, a religious group with distinctive beliefs that forbade its members
from saluting the national anthem or the flag because they believed that these actions were
expressions of allegiance that should only be made to their God. Their kids were expelled from
a Kerala government-run school as a result of their unwillingness to take part in these activities.
The right to freedom of religion, a basic right guaranteed by Article 25 of the Indian
Constitution, was the key legal issue in this case. The main issue was whether the right to freely
practice one’s religion may be violated by the state’s mandated requirements that pupils
participate in activities that represent national identity. In a landmark decision, the Supreme
Court acknowledged the importance of religious pluralism in the nation. It concluded that the
petitioners’ children’s removal from the school did violate their basic right to freedom of
religion.
The Court emphasized the idea that the Constitution respects and takes into account a broad
variety of faiths, guaranteeing that people have the freedom to practice their religion without
interference from outside parties. The Court recognized the value of national symbols in
promoting a sense of solidarity and patriotism, but it said that these goals could not be achieved
at the price of an individual’s ardent religious beliefs. It was emphasized that people’s freedom
of religion should not be influenced by how the general public defines patriotism and that the
government must take measures to prevent people from being forced into actions that are
incompatible with their religious beliefs.
A significant precedent in Indian law was set by this judgment. It reaffirmed the idea that the
government must protect individual liberties, particularly those about one’s religious
convictions, as well as the nation’s rich diversity of cultures and religions. It emphasized the
fact that especially when it comes to acts of religious conscience, individual liberties, and rights
should never be suppressed. The Bijoe Emmanuel case is a potent reminder of how crucial it
is to protect religious liberty as well as how crucial it is to practice tolerance and
accommodation within the confines of a democratic society. It promotes the idea that
maintaining an inclusive and just society in a multicultural country like India requires
recognizing individual rights, even when they diverge from the norm. In the framework of
public institutions and national symbols, the conversation about striking a balance between
state interests and individual liberties is still shaped by this judgment.

RELEVANT CASE LAWS

S. R. Bommai V Union of India5 (1994): The S. R. Bommai case set a precedent for federalism
and the anti-defection statute. It indirectly affected Articles 19 and 25, among other things. The
Supreme Court’s ruling highlighted how crucial it is to protect parliamentarians’ right to free
speech and expression (Article 19). It was recommended that the anti-defection statute
shouldn’t restrict a legislator’s freedom to express their religious or cultural beliefs in the
context of religious concerns. The case served as a reminder of how crucial it is to uphold
constitutional rights even during legislative debates, where the expression of religious
convictions may collide with party rules. It emphasized the fine line that must be drawn
between political party rules and personal freedoms, especially the ability to practice one’s
religion.
Sarup Singh V State of Punjab6 (1962): The Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act was at
issue in this case, which highlighted issues about the interplay between the state’s right to
control acts that can impair morals and public order under Article 25 of the Constitution. The
court maintained the statute but made clear that it should not impair religious practices or
beliefs in an unreasonable way. It illustrated the necessity of striking a balance between
religious liberty and the state’s ability to pass laws in the interest of the general good and
morality, particularly in a varied and multicultural nation like India. The case demonstrated that
while Article 25 protects religious practices, it is not unqualified, and if appropriate state
limitations are required to keep society moral and orderly without too restricting the liberties
outlined in Article 25.
Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali7 (1962): The dispute in question was the
ownership of the Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti Shrine in Ajmer, both legally and
administratively. It emphasized the relevance of Article 25, which protects the rights of
religious denominations to conduct their own affairs and provides religious freedom. It also
showed how morality and public order concerns may interact with religious freedom,
necessitating a careful balance. The court ruled that unless there is a compelling justification,
such as worries about public order or morality, the state should not meddle in the administration
of religious organizations or the performance of religious rites. This case emphasized how
religious liberties are protected by the Constitution and how state interference in religious matters is constrained. It emphasized the necessity of striking a balance between the protection
of religious freedom and the promotion of the general good, world peace, and morality.

In the landmark case of Aruna Roy v. Union of India8 in 2002, the right to information was
emphasized as a component of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article
19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Although it has nothing to do with Article 25, this example
shows how openness in religious entities that receive government support and Article 19 issues
may overlap. The ruling acknowledged the need for responsibility and openness in
organizations, including religious ones, that receive funding from the government. It
emphasized the idea that having access to information is essential to exercising one’s right to
free expression in order to make educated judgments. This case widened the reach of Article
19 by demonstrating how it applies to access to information that fosters openness in a variety
of organizations, including religious entities, as well as traditional forms of speech and
expression.
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala9 (Sabarimala Temple Case): A
significant ruling in the Sabarimala Temple case addressed how multiple fundamental rights,
including Article 19 and Article 25, interact with one another. The lawsuit mainly focused on
how young girls and women entered the Sabarimala Temple. It brought up concerns about
gender equality (Article 15) vs religious practices (Article 25), as well as freedom of speech
and expression (Article 19). In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized gender equality and
the rejection of discrimination against women, holding that such religious practices cannot be
perpetuated. While defending the rights of female worshippers, it also emphasized the necessity
of striking a balance between personal freedoms and religious practices. The case served as a
reminder of how difficult it is to balance multiple constitutional rights and ideals while yet
ensuring that religious practices do not infringe upon equality, dignity, or freedom of speech
and expression.33

1 1987 AIR 748, 1986 SCR (3) 518

2 The constitution of India, 1950

5 AIR 1994 SC 1918 13
6 1959 AIR 860 14
7 1961 AIR 1402

8 AIR 2002 SC 3176
9(2019) 11 SCC 1