The article seeks to provide a brief analysis of the landmark judgement in the case of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala. An attempt has been made to analyse the importance of the National Anthem and the duty of every citizen to respect it. The article delves into the question of whether it is mandatory to stand and participate in singing the National Anthem every time it is recited or played and whether a person can be compelled to sing the national anthem even if it conflicts with their right to religion.
It has been published by Rachit Garg.
Table of Contents
Background
The National Anthem holds significant importance as a symbol of unity, patriotism, and national identity. It serves to honour the history, values, and sacrifices of a nation’s people, evoking a sense of pride and belonging among citizens. Through its lyrics and melody, the National Anthem fosters a shared emotional connection, transcending differences in background, beliefs, and experiences. It is often performed at key national events, ceremonies, and sporting occasions, reinforcing a collective spirit and reminding individuals of their allegiance to their country. Additionally, the National Anthem can inspire citizens to uphold the principles of democracy, liberty, and justice, serving as a reminder of the freedoms and rights that they enjoy as members of their nation.
The issue of respecting the Indian National Anthem has been under consideration for decades. The government intended to inculcate the values at an early stage. Hence, the National Anthem is recited in school assemblies across the country. Every teacher and pupil is expected to stand and sing the National Anthem during this period. However, when it was noticed that certain students in a school in Kerala did not participate in singing the National Anthem during the assembly due to their religious beliefs, the question became a nationwide issue. It was the landmark judgement of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala [(1986) 3 SCC 615], which has been discussed further.
Facts of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala
The facts of the case involved three children, namely Bijoe, Binu Mol, and Bindu Emmanuel, who were believers of Jehovah’s Witnesses. They were students at a school in Kerala. The students participated in the school assembly every day. However, they did not participate in singing the National Anthem during the assembly. It was noted that the children never disrespected or insulted the National Anthem during the assembly but stood respectfully and quietly. This was done due to their belief in Jehovah’s Witnesses, which provided that the Witnesses would participate only in religious offerings and none other. On being noticed by a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA), followed by Assembly debates on the issue, the students were expelled from the school on the instructions of the Inspector of Schools. Aggrieved by the expulsion, the father of the children sought relief from the decisions of the school administration. However, the plea was to no avail.
A writ petition was filed before the Single Judge, Kerala High Court, who dismissed the same. The Division Bench of the High Court also rejected the appeal of the children. Thus, a Special Leave Petition was preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Issues involved
The issue involved before the High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether the non-participation of the children in singing the National Anthem during the school assembly amounted to disrespect for the National Anthem.
Contentions of the parties in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala
Petitioners’ contentions
The Petitioners in the case relied on their fundamental right to speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It provides that no citizen shall be denied the right to speech and expression, subject to the limitations provided under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. They contended that their religious beliefs do not allow them to participate in any offerings or recitals other than their offerings to their God. Thus, standing peacefully and not creating any hindrances in the school assembly cannot be said to be disrespectful towards the National Anthem. It was never the intention of the Petitioners to disrespect the National Anthem. Thus, the expulsion from the school on this pretext was unjustified and must be quashed.
Moreover, reliance was placed on Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution, i.e., the fundamental right to practice any religion and manage religious affairs, respectively. This can be subject only to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of Part III. Thus, no legislation can be enforced on any other grounds against the Petitioners’ right to freedom of religion. Thus, the non-participation of the Petitioners in singing the National Anthem forms part of the freedom to practice a religion and does not, in any manner, create any hindrance to public order, morality and health or violate any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. Expulsion on the said grounds would be patently void.
The Petitioners also contended that neither the Kerala Education Act, 1958, nor the rules made thereunder, authorise any school to prevent the students from attending classes for the sole reason of not participating in singing the National Anthem.
Respondents’ contentions
The first contention raised by the Respondents was that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are not even a religious sect, let alone them being a religious belief. They are only an association of people following Christianity. Thus, they cannot seek protection under Article 26 of the Constitution. Not participating in singing the National Anthem cannot be insulated by Article 26.
Another contention raised by the Respondents was that the actions of the Witnesses violated Article 51A of the Constitution. Article 51A of the Constitution provides that it is the fundamental duty of every citizen to abide by the Constitution and respect the National Flag and the National Anthem. By choosing not to sing the National Anthem at the school assembly, the Witnesses are disrespecting the National Anthem.
Additionally, the Respondents relied upon Circular H6-47833/69, dated 18-2-1970 issued by the Director of Public Instruction for the Code of Conduct of the Teachers and Pupils in Schools. It stated that “it is compulsory that all schools shall have the morning Assembly every day before actual instruction begins. The whole school with all the pupils and teachers shall be gathered for the Assembly. After the singing of the National Anthem, the whole school shall, in one voice, take the National Pledge before marching back to the classes.” The Respondents argued that the Petitioners violated the said circular as well.
On the above grounds, the Respondents argued that it is compulsory for each and every student to participate in singing the National Anthem during the school assembly, and since the Petitioners did not do so, they were rightly expelled from the school.
Ruling by the Kerala High Court
The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, in its judgement dated October 7, 1985, rejected the contentions raised by the Petitioners and held that the Head Mistress of the school rightly prohibited the pupil from attending the school. The judgement of the Court was based on the following reasons:
- The Court highlighted the importance of the National Anthem by delving into the intent of the Parliament in introducing the Fundamental Duties of the citizens under Article 51A of the Constitution through the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976. It was held that the Parliament wanted to emphasise on the integrity and unity of India. Moreover, the fundamental duties under the Constitution are the political responsibilities of the citizens. The citizens cannot be absolved of this political responsibility on the grounds of different practices by their political society.
- The Court ruled the Jehovah’s Witnesses to be nothing more than a charitable society. The contention of the Respondents that the Witnesses are not even a sect of Christianity, let alone a religion in itself, was accepted by the Court. Hence, the Witnesses cannot be granted the fundamental right of religion as provided under the Constitution. This was even substantiated by the findings that the Witnesses had various registered offices around the globe, including in India. Thus, the Witnesses are not entitled to protection under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
- Further, the Court held that the fundamental right of religion cannot be exercised independently of the fundamental duties enshrined under the Constitution. It was stated that where there is a mandatory duty cast on the citizens that they should show respect to the National Flag and National Anthem, the citizens are bound to show unqualified respect to them, notwithstanding any special rights, they may claim under the Constitution. Article 51A of the Constitution contains such a mandate. It is well-established that such Constitutional provisions must be read into every enactment, or, in any event, must be deemed to be there by implication because “the Constitution is the paramount law of the country to which all other laws are subject.”
Judgement in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala
The Hon’ble Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Kerala High Court through its judgement dated August 11, 1986, for the following reasons:
- The patent issue involved in the case was whether the students could be expelled from the school for not fulfilling their fundamental duties enshrined under the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court swayed away from the issue to analyse if the Witnesses did not acknowledge the words and ideals of the National Anthem. The High Court minutely discussed each word of the National Anthem to conclude that no word or thought in the National Anthem could offend any person’s religious belief. However, the Court held that it was not the words or ideals of the National Anthem that the Witnesses and their beliefs disapproved of, but rather the singing that was against their religious beliefs. Relying on various international judgements, including Adelaide Company of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. The Commonwealth (1943) and Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940), the Court held that the Jehovah’s Witnesses have certain unusual beliefs, but they did not intend to disrespect national values.
- Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression to the citizens of India. Article 19(2) of the Constitution authorises the Parliament to enact any law that could put a reasonable restriction on the exercise of such rights on the grounds mentioned under the clause itself. On such grounds, the Parliament has the power to enact laws to restrict speech and expressions that may be against national honour. The Respondents argued that the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the rules made thereunder fall within the competence of the Parliament to put reasonable restrictions on the citizens’ right to freedom of speech and expression. However, the Court rejected this contention and held that the Parliament had already enacted the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. Section 2 of the Act deals with insults towards the National Flag and the Constitution of India, whereas Section 3 of the Act deals with insults to the National Anthem. It cannot be stated that the Parliament made an omission by not including the non-singing of the National Anthem as an insult to it. The provision only penalises the act of preventing others from singing the National Anthem. It is not the case at hand. The students remained respectfully quiet and did not prevent any other students or cause any disturbance during the school assembly. Hence, it cannot be stated that the students insulted the National Anthem.
- On the issue of violation of the circulars issued by the Director of Public Instruction, the Court noted that the circulars did not have any backing from any statute. It also did not obligate every pupil in the assembly to participate in singing the National Anthem. Moreover, the circular did not provide any sanction for violating the said directions. Thus, it was stated that “If the two circulars are to be so interpreted as to compel each and every pupil to join in the singing of the National Anthem despite his genuine, conscientious religious objection, then such compulsion would clearly contravene the rights guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(a) and Art. 25(1).”
Finally, the Court concluded that the authorities, including the School Headmistress and the Deputy Inspector of Police, breached the limitation to their powers under the Constitution by violating the Petitioners’ rights enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25(1) of the Constitution. The judgement of the Kerala High Court was set aside with directions to the Respondents to reinstate the children in the school.
Analysis of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala
The importance of the National Anthem of a country cannot be emphasised upon enough. It is a matter of pride and honour for the whole country. Disrespecting it in any manner is intolerable. The Legislature has enacted the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, to prevent anyone from insulting the National Anthem, National Flag, the Constitution, etc. Section 3 of the Act prescribes the punishment for preventing any person from singing the National Anthem or causing any disturbance during the assembly, which includes imprisonment, which may extend to three years, a fine or both. Moreover, through the Forty-Second Amendment to the Constitution, the Parliament has added the fundamental duties of a citizen, which include honouring the National Anthem.
After the crucial ruling in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, there have been a number of cases wherein the non-participation in singing the National Anthem has been alleged as showing disrespect towards it. Some of the landmark decisions have been discussed hereinbelow:
Union of India v. Naveen Jindal (2004)
Facts of the Case
In this case, the Respondent, Naveen Jindal, was the Managing Director of a factory in Delhi. The factory premises of the Respondent were flying the National Flag. However, this was objected to by the government authorities on the grounds that the act violated the Flag Code of India, 2002. Aggrieved by this, Respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court stated that the Flag Code of India was merely an executive direction and not a law. Hence, the Petition was disposed of, stating that the Flag Code was not a valid ground for restricting the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the government preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Issues before the Court
The issue before the Court was whether it is a fundamental and absolute right of a citizen to fly the National Flag at a public place or whether the Central Government is authorised to regulate the same.
Contentions of the Parties
Appellant’s Contentions
The Appellant contended that the Central Government was authorised to regulate the conduct of the citizens regarding the use of the National Flag in public places under Section 3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. They further contended that the Central Government was authorised to impose reasonable restrictions, under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, on the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. They further argued that it was a policy decision whether to allow or not the use of the National Flag by the citizens and the Courts were not authorised to intervene.
Respondent’s Contentions
The Respondent argued that it was the fundamental right of a citizen to use or fly the National Flag with respect and dignity. Moreover, the Flag Code was merely an executive order by the government and not a law, making it a directory and not mandatory.
Judgement
The Court analysed various aspects of this case. On the question of the Flag Code being a law, the Court held that it cannot be stated that the Flag Code is a law under the provisions of Article 13 of the Constitution. Further, on the contention of the Respondent that the free use of the National Flag was a fundamental right of every citizen, the Court stated that it was more of a fundamental duty rather than a fundamental right of the citizen to respectfully use the National Flag, National Anthem and the Constitution.
Additionally, the Court analysed the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, and the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971; to state that it is of paramount importance to respect the National Flag, National Anthem and the Constitution of India. These are symbols of secularism. They represent the supreme collective expression of commitment and loyalty to the nation, as well as patriotism for the country. They are necessary adjuncts of sovereignty, being symbols and actions associated therewith. Thus, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the government and held that using the National Flag respectfully was a fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.
Although the issue in the case was regarding the use of the National Flag by private entities, the Court stated that it is important for every citizen to respect the National Anthem as well.
Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India (2018)
Background of the Case
The background of the case involves a Writ Petition filed at the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in 2001, in the case of Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India (2003). The Petitioner went to watch the film ‘Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham’ in a cinema hall. While viewing the said movie, the Petitioner found that in a particular portion, the background of the film is set in London, and the child, the son of the main protagonists, sings the National Anthem of India in the school function. The Petitioner, being a nationalist and patriotic citizen, immediately stood up. However, he was surprised to find out that not only the crowd watching the film did not stand up to pay homage to the National Anthem, but rather objected to the Petitioner for obstructing their view. As a result, the Petitioner started protesting in front of the cinema hall and filed complaints with the police, but to no avail. Finally, a writ petition was filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to be cautious and avoid certification of films commercialising the National Anthem. The writ petition was allowed and the CBFC was directed to not certify the film without deletion of the relevant portion.
Aggrieved by the decision, the Producer and the Director of the film preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Karan Johar v. Union of India (2004). The said appeal was allowed and the directions to the Central Government were nullified by the Apex Court.
Facts of the Case
In this case, the Petitioner approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to take appropriate steps for inculcating in the public a proper sense of paying due respect to the National Anthem; to issue a writ, order or direction as to what is required to be done and not to be done when the National Anthem is being played or sung; to specify what will constitute disrespect and abuse of the National Anthem; and to restrain the use of the National Anthem for any commercial exploitation or to gain financial advantage in any manner.
Issues before the Court
The issue in the present case was whether it was mandatory to play and sing the National Anthem before the featured film starts in a cinema hall.
Contentions of the Parties
Petitioner’s Contentions
The Petitioner argued that the National Anthem is not only a song, but rather a national honour. It depicts the culture and the history of the country. It depicts the national struggle to gain independence. Thus, it is the duty of the citizens to respect the National Anthem by standing and singing it whenever it is recited or played. The Petitioner also argued that it is also a fundamental duty of the citizens under Article 51A of the Constitution, and thus, the Court may issue directions as to what may constitute disrespect towards the National Anthem, and direct that no one should gain a commercial advantage from it.
Respondents’ Contentions
The Respondents, in this case, argued that the Central Government was in the process of formulating guidelines regarding the conduct of citizens while the National Anthem was recited. However, it may not be made mandatory for the citizens to stand up while the National Anthem is part of the storyline of the film. Thus, the Writ Petition may be dismissed.
Interim measures by the Court
The Supreme Court, as an interim measure, issued the following directions:
- There shall be no commercial exploitation of the National Anthem. No person singing it or depicting it in any manner should gain any commercial advantage out of it.
- There shall be no dramatisation of the National Anthem as it is the duty of every citizen to pay due respect to the national honour. Dramatisation of any manner is inconceivable.
- The National Anthem or a part of it shall not be printed on any object and also never be displayed in such a manner at such places that may be disgraceful to its status and tantamount to disrespect.
- All the cinema halls shall play the National Anthem before the feature film starts and every person in the cinema hall shall stand and sing the National Anthem.
- The entry and exit doors of the cinema halls shall remain closed while the National Anthem is played.
- The picture of the National Flag shall be displayed while the National Anthem is being played.
- No one should play or depict an abridged version of the National Anthem.
Judgement
While the Supreme Court was determining the case on merits, the Respondents submitted that it had formed a twelve-member Inter-Ministerial Committee to recommend whether the National Anthem must be played before the feature film starts in cinema halls. The Ministry of Home Affairs also issued certain directions vide Order No. 14/6/2016-Public dated May 12, 2017, regarding exemptions granted to persons with disabilities from standing while the National Anthem was played in the cinema halls. Accordingly, the Court modified its interim order to the extent that playing the National Anthem in cinema halls was directory and not mandatory and provided that the exemptions granted to persons with disabilities shall remain in force.
Dr. Tawseef Ahmad Bhat v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2021)
Facts of the Case
In this case, the Petitioner approached the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court, praying for the quashing of an FIR registered against him under Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 for allegedly causing a disturbance during the assembly and disrespecting the National Anthem. The Petitioner was a professor at a college on a contractual basis. One day, a special assembly was arranged to celebrate the surgical strike against a neighbouring country. During the said assembly, the National Anthem was sung by everyone present. It was the case of the complainants that the Petitioner did not stand up and sing the National Anthem in the said assembly. The complainants approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), who directed the complaint to the police station with a direction to file the impugned FIR.
Issues and contentions
The Petitioner challenged the facts in the complaint. According to him, he participated in the singing of the National Anthem and did not, in any manner, disrespect it or cause any disturbance during the assembly. Moreover, he contended that the SDM was not competent to direct the police to register an FIR against him. The Petitioner also contended that disrespecting the National Anthem was not punishable under the provisions of the Act.
Judgement
The High Court took note of the issues involved in the case. On the first issue, the Court analysed Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). It was held that only a judicial magistrate is competent under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to direct the police to file an FIR. An Executive Magistrate is not authorised to give such directions. Even if the SDM finds that an offence has been committed, he is obliged to inform the police so that they can take action under Section 154 of the CrPC. Thus, the FIR against the Petitioner ought to be quashed on this ground.
Further, the High Court also analysed Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, and what acts shall constitute an insult or disrespect of the national honour. It was held that the Act penalises only the wilful prevention of singing the National Anthem or the act of causing disturbance during the assembly. It does not penalise the disrespect of the National Anthem. The Court also placed reliance upon the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2019, which was tabled in Parliament for amending Section 3 of the Act to penalise the act of not standing during the National Anthem. Since the Bill was not accepted in Parliament, the Court held that it was not the intention of Parliament to include such an act as an insult or disrespect towards the National Anthem. Thus, it is not mandatory to stand during the National Anthem, even though it is a fundamental duty under Article 51A of the Constitution. Even though the Petitioner violated his fundamental duty, the FIR was found to be baseless and was quashed by the Court.
In the cases discussed above, it can be seen that the judicial approach towards ‘disrespect of the National Anthem’ has been rather strict. In all the cases, the alleged disrespect was depicted by not standing during the assembly or standing quietly but not singing it. In Bijoe Emmanuel’s case, it was seen that the students were respectfully quiet during the assembly. They did not cause any kind of disturbance. A similar case was seen in Shyam Narayan Chouksey’s case, as well as Dr. Tawseef Ahmed Bhat’s case. In none of these cases did the accused cause disturbance of any kind or prevent any other person from singing the National Anthem.
Sankar Ghosh & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2023)
Facts of the Case
In this case, an FIR was lodged against 12 members of the Legislative Assembly of West Bengal for disrespecting the National Anthem. During a session of the Legislative Assembly, the members of the Ruling Party, i.e., the Trinamool Congress, started protesting. The protest was against the Central Government for withholding the funds sanctioned under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). Objecting to the protest, the 12 members of the Opposition Party, i.e., the Bharatiya Janata Party, started shouting slogans and allegedly blocked the exit of the Assembly building. Amidst the shouting, the protest of the TMC members concluded with the singing of the National Anthem. While the National Anthem was sung in the Assembly by certain members, the 12 accused were shouting slogans. This, according to the complainants, was disrespectful of the National Anthem. Accordingly, an FIR was registered. The Petitioners approached the High Court of West Bengal to quash the said FIR.
Issues before the Court
The issue before the Court was whether shouting slogans at the time when certain members sang the National Anthem at the Assembly was disrespectful of the National Anthem.
Contentions of the Parties
Petitioners’ Contentions
The Petitioners argued that the protest resulted in a situation of chaos. They argued that it was indecorous on the part of the members of the Ruling Party to sing the National Anthem in such a situation. It was not a case of wrongful restraint, as an alternative exit was available for the members. Moreover, the protests by the Petitioners and the Respondents were taking place in two different areas of the Assembly. It was impossible for the Petitioners to hear the National Anthem, let alone wilfully disrespect it.
Respondents’ contentions
The Respondents placed reliance on Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. & Ors. (2013) to argue that since the case related to a cognizable offence, the police were right in registering the said FIR and proceeding further. Thus, the FIR ought not to be quashed by the High Court, as quashing has to be done in the rarest of the rare cases. Further, reliance was placed on CCTV video recordings of the Assembly.
Judgement
The Court noted that it was necessary to hear the case at length. No prima facie case was found against the Petitioners and the Court stayed the proceedings until further directions.
The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2019
The Bill was introduced in 2019 to amend Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. The proposed amendment was to add the phrase “intentionally causes disrespect to the National Anthem” to the penal provision. Additionally, an explanation was also proposed to be added, which read, “For the purposes of this section, the word “disrespect” shall include any person refusing to stand for or recite the National Anthem except when such person is suffering from any physical disability in that regard.” The Statement of Objects and Reasons provided that the intention of the amendment was to make it mandatory for every person to stand and recite the National Anthem whenever it is sung or played in an assembly of people.
It is pertinent to note that the proposed bill was not accepted by Parliament. This implies that it is not the legislative intent to penalise the act of not participating in singing or standing while the National Anthem is recited. Such acts would not be considered disrespectful of the National Anthem, but rather would be treated as the right to speech of the individual.
Code of Conduct by the Ministry of Home Affairs
The Ministry of Home Affairs has issued Orders relating to the National Anthem of India, which is the code of conduct to be followed by every citizen of the country to pay due respect to the National Anthem. It provides the contents of the National Anthem. Moreover, it also provides a short version, which is as follows:
“Jana-gana-mana-adhinayaka jaya he
Bharata-bhagya-vidhata.
Jaya he, jaya he, jaya he,
Jaya jaya jaya jaya he.”
The Code of Conduct also provides the occasions on which the National Anthem has to be played. These include:
- Civil and Military investitures;
- National Salute to the President or the Governor/Lieutenant Governor;
- During Parades;
- On arrival and departure of the President or the Governor/Lieutenant Governor at official State functions;
- Before and after the President addresses the nation on All India Radio;
- When the National Flag is brought on parade;
- When the Regimental Colours are presented;
- For hoisting of colours in the Navy;
- Drinking toasts in Messes (short version has to be played);
- Any other special occasion.
Further, the Code of Conduct also provides the occasions on which the National Anthem shall be sung in masses. These include:
- On cultural and ceremonial functions when the National Flag is unfurled;
- On arrival and departure of the President at Public functions;
- In schools, before the commencement of the classes, by way of community singing.
The Code of Conduct also provides the conditions for playing the National Anthem of a foreign state. Additionally, it states that whenever the National Anthem is played or sung, everyone has to stand in attention. However, when it is played as a part of a film, it is not mandatory to stand, as standing is bound to interrupt the exhibition of the film and would create disorder and confusion rather than add to the dignity of the Anthem. The citizens are expected to abide by these rules under the Code of Conduct.
Conclusion
In all the cases discussed above, the Courts took note of this fact and applied the law as laid down in the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. The Courts stated that the accused were not to be penalised for not singing or standing during the National Anthem. It was not an act of disrespect towards the National Anthem, either due to religious beliefs or even when the depiction was in the middle of a film. Although it was noted that these acts violated the fundamental duties of the citizens, they were not to be penalised.
Even the legislative intent was not to penalise non-participation in singing the National Anthem. This is evident through the rejection of the 2019 Amendment Bill to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, as the proposed amendment was to change the meaning of disrespect in the context of the Act. Thus, it can be stated that even though it is a fundamental duty of every citizen to stand and participate in singing the National Anthem, they cannot be compelled to do so by penalising it.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Which case is known as the ‘National Anthem’ case?
Bijou Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) is popularly known as the ‘National Anthem’ case. In this case, the Supreme Court held that not singing the National Anthem while it is recited is not an offence under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, if the accused is not disrespecting it.
What is the ruling by the Supreme Court about standing up for the National Anthem?
While the Supreme Court has stated that singing the National Anthem is not mandatory under the provisions of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, it has clarified in Shyam Narayan Chouksey’s case that everyone shall be expected to stand up while the National Anthem is being recited.
What is the punishment for disrespecting the National Anthem?
Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, provides that anyone disrespecting the National Anthem shall be punished with imprisonment for a term that may extend up to three years, a fine, or both.
Is it mandatory to stand up and participate in singing while the National Anthem is being recited?
It is not mandatory to stand up and participate in singing when the National Anthem is being recited. However, it is pertinent to note that it is the fundamental duty of every citizen to honour the National Anthem. Disrespecting the National Anthem is not tolerable, and it is even a penal offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, to the extent of preventing any other person from singing the National Anthem or causing a disturbance during the assembly. Not singing the National Anthem while it is recited is not an offence.
Is it mandatory to stand up while the National Anthem is recited?
While it is not mandatory for the citizens to sing the National Anthem if they are respectful towards it, they may need to remain standing while it is recited. This is because the act of not standing up while the National Anthem is sung may constitute disrespect towards it. Such conduct would attract the penal provisions of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.
However, sometimes the National Anthem is played as part of a movie. However, the public cannot be expected to stand up during such a recital. The case of Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India was filed on a similar issue. However, the Court held that it is not mandatory to stand up during such a recital.
Exemptions have also been granted to persons with disabilities, as it may be impossible for them to stand due to their physical conditions. Thus, persons with disabilities cannot be compelled to stand when the National Anthem is recited. However, it is pertinent to note that the conduct of such persons still needs to be respectful.
References
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.
