Introduction:

The 1986 Supreme Court case of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala stands as a significant milestone in the interpretation and application of the right to freedom of religion under the Indian Constitution. The case arose from the refusal of three children belonging to the Jehovah's Witnesses sect to sing the national anthem during school assembly, citing their religious beliefs. This seemingly simple act ignited a crucial debate on the delicate balance between fundamental duties, religious freedom, and the State's authority in educational institutions. The Supreme Court's eventual judgement in favor of the children underscored the paramountcy of individual conscience and the limitations on compelling religious observances, solidifying the secular ethos enshrined in the Constitution.

Issues:

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the expulsion of the children from school for refusing to sing the national anthem, while standing respectfully during its recitation, violated their fundamental right to freedom of religion and conscience guaranteed under Article 25(1) of the Constitution. Specifically, the Court had to determine:

• • Whether the act of singing the national anthem could be considered a mandatory religious practice that the State could compel?
• • Whether the refusal to sing, based on sincerely held religious beliefs, constituted a violation of the fundamental duty to respect the national anthem under Article 51A(a)?
• • Whether the State's action of expelling the children was a reasonable restriction on their fundamental rights in the interest of public order or any other legitimate ground?

Analysis:

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the constitutional provisions and the facts of the case. It recognized that the children's refusal to sing was not out of disrespect for the national anthem but stemmed from their genuine religious belief that their faith prohibited them from participating in any ritualistic expression of reverence towards any entity other than their God. They consistently stood respectfully during the singing, demonstrating their respect for the nation.

The Court differentiated between the fundamental right to freedom of religion and the fundamental duty to respect the national anthem. It emphasized that fundamental duties, while important, are not enforceable in the same manner as fundamental rights. The duty to respect does not necessarily imply a mandatory obligation to actively participate in singing.

Furthermore, the Court applied the "essential religious practices" doctrine, although not explicitly stated in those terms. It acknowledged that the core tenets of a religion are beyond the purview of State interference. The Jehovah's Witnesses' belief against idolatry and ritualistic salutations was deemed a sincerely held religious belief.

The Court also examined whether the State's action of expulsion could be justified as a reasonable restriction. It found that the children's silent and respectful standing did not cause any disruption to public order, morality, or health. The State failed to demonstrate any compelling state interest that warranted the infringement of the children's fundamental right to freedom of religion.

Judgement:

The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgement in favor of Bijoe Emmanuel and the other children. The Court held that the expulsion of the children for refusing to sing the national anthem violated their fundamental right to freedom of conscience and religion under Article 25(1) of the Constitution.

The Court reasoned that:

• • Forcing genuinely religious children to sing something contrary to their faith would violate their fundamental right to freedom of conscience.
• • Standing respectfully during the national anthem adequately demonstrated respect for the nation and did not constitute any insubordination.
• • The State had failed to establish any legitimate reason or compelling state interest to justify the infringement of the children's fundamental rights.

The Court directed the school authorities to readmit the children, upholding the primacy of fundamental rights and the importance of respecting sincerely held religious beliefs.

Conclusion:

The Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala case remains a cornerstone in the jurisprudence of religious freedom in India. The judgement powerfully affirmed the constitutional guarantee of individual liberty, particularly the freedom of conscience and the right to practice one's religion without undue coercion from the State. It clarified that the duty to respect national symbols does not necessitate active participation in rituals that conflict with sincerely held religious beliefs. The case underscored the judiciary's role in safeguarding fundamental rights against unwarranted state action and reinforced the secular principles of the Indian Constitution by recognizing and protecting the religious autonomy of individuals and minority groups. It serves as a crucial reminder of the delicate balance between national symbols, fundamental duties, and the cherished right to freedom of religion.