## Facts

- Three schoolchildren in Kerala, members of Jehovah’s Witnesses, attended a government-aided school where the national anthem was sung at morning assembly.
- The children stood respectfully during the anthem but did not sing, asserting a sincere religious objection to singing as an act of worship.
- After political and administrative attention, an official inquiry reported the children were law-abiding and showed no disrespect to the anthem.
- Despite the inquiry, the Deputy Inspector of Schools directed action, and the headmistress expelled the children from the school.
- The children’s father challenged the expulsion in court, asserting violations of constitutional rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion; the High Court upheld the expulsion.

## Issues

1. Whether requiring students to sing the national anthem as a condition of continued enrollment violates freedom of speech and expression, including the right not to speak.
2. Whether compelling singing infringes freedom of conscience and the right to profess and practice religion when the objection is sincere.
3. Whether non-statutory departmental instructions can restrict fundamental rights.
4. Whether standing silently and respectfully during the anthem constitutes “disrespect” or an offence under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, or misconduct under education laws.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the expulsion and the High Court’s judgments.
- The Court held the students’ rights to freedom of expression and freedom of conscience/religion were violated by compelling them to sing despite a genuine religious objection.
- Standing respectfully in silence did not amount to disrespect and did not constitute an offence under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.
- Departmental instructions lacking statutory force could not lawfully curtail fundamental rights.
- The school was directed to readmit the students.

## Legal Principles

- Freedom of speech and expression includes a negative component: the State generally may not compel an individual to speak or affirm expression against conscience, absent lawful and permissible restrictions.
- Freedom of conscience and religion protects sincerely held religious practices; courts focus on the genuineness of belief, not judicial approval of its rationality or popularity.
- Restrictions on fundamental rights must have a basis “by law”; executive or departmental circulars without statutory backing cannot override constitutional rights.
- Respectful non-participation in a ceremonial act is not “disrespect” when it neither prevents others from participating nor disturbs the assembly.

## Conclusion

The Court held that expelling students who respectfully refrained from singing the national anthem for sincere religious reasons was unconstitutional, because compelled participation lacked statutory authority, infringed freedom of conscience, and amounted to compelled expression despite no disturbance or disrespect.


Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 S.C.R. 518 (India 1986)