Landmark Judgement in India | Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala | National Anthem Case | Deeksha Mam

0:00 Hello everyone welcome to Zee Shri Test Book, this is me Diksha Chaudhary and in the Freedom Series I bring for you a very important fourth landmark decision which relates to Article 191A where every citizen has the right to speech, the right to expression and here in the case of Vijay Emmanuel it was said that not only does a citizen have the right to speak but he also has the right to remain silent. That is, the right to speech and expression includes the right to remain silent. Now, how will we understand this thing? Here the Supreme Court has created a very good balance between Article 19 as well as Article 25. Because here there was a clash between both the particular fundamental rights. So this is a best example of how the

0:46 Supreme Court has balanced both the fundamental rights. Let us take over the whole matter. What were the facts of this particular case and what were the issues discussed in the Supreme Court and what final decision did the Supreme Court give. Stay connected till the end of the video. Along with this, these particular PDFs are available in a description box below this video. It has a Google Form. If you fill up that Google form, you will get all the PDFs in Hindi as well as English format. Like I have prepared it for you guys. This is my Telegram channel Diksha Chaudhary Judiciary where you can connect with me. Any of my videos on YouTube, any PDF, you get everything on my Telegram channel. This is my WhatsApp number where if you have any query related to studies you can text me there. So look here, let us first see the facts. These

1:32 are very interesting facts. Where in a school you all know that there are assemblies in the school. School assemblies, morning assemblies, afternoon, lunch time assemblies. Ok? So here in most of the schools, during assembly time, the national anthem is sung. Ok? Similarly you can see these are three children in Kerala. There are three siblings Bijoy, Bindu as well as Bindu who belong to the Ahowa faith here. Now there is a particular belief in Jehovah Faith. Isn't it? This is belief. There is a belief that Singh cannot sing the National Anthem. Because for anyone, you know, singing any song with purity here, that is totally we can do this only for God. This act of hours

2:18 is only reserved for God. He was a believer in Yehowa Faith. That's why we couldn't sing the national anthem here. What happened in the incident? These three children do not sing the national anthem in the school assembly, which was a particular school in Kerala. But whenever the national anthem is being sung by the other students or by the school authorities, they stand straight here. They stand absolutely respectfully. Butt doesn't sing. Ok? So this is a little difference, why are you not singing? Yes, you are standing. You are standing respectfully. But why are you not singing the anthem ? Ok? So on this basis, the principal of the school

3:03 rusticated them saying, "Look, all the students of this school are singing the National Anthem and you people are disrespecting our National Anthem by not singing it and are also violating the school guidelines and all our regulations for the schools." Ok? So all three of these children were expelled from here. Retigate was expelled from school. Ok? So now let us see that here this is for Hindi students. Some legal issues had arisen. Of course, the case first went to the Kerala High Court and the Kerala High Court gave the case particularly in the interest of the principal. Said in favor of the principal that the investigation was absolutely correct and the children should have sung the national anthem. Because by saying no he has violated the National Anthem.

3:48 Ok? But see, here when children reach the Supreme Court, two issues arise regarding their expulsion. Rather there is a you know in a way two articles come together. Fundamental Art Fundamental Rights which are fundamental rights. The first question that arises in the Supreme Court is whether our freedom of speech and expression under Article 191A is concerned. Is our right to remain silent also recognized in it or not? Whether freedom of speech and expression includes the right to remain silent or not. This is the very very very question that arises here. And secondly, Weather because these kids belonged to Giova Faith. So, is this

4:35 particular right to freedom, which is the right to religion, our fundamental right from Article 25 to 28? So are these rights of these people protected? Ok? So these two ambitions were decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Bijoy Emmanuel and you know, a very positive response came. The expulsion order for all three children was reversed and it was said that there is no state obligation of any kind. Which says that children will have to sing and sing the National Anthem. Whatever departmental circulars are internal, all the circulars within our school lack legislative packing and these could not override fundamental rights. So if any such

5:21 rules exist in school it is because there is no legal reason behind them. That is why regulations of this type will be void. They will have no recognition. Also because they are going against our fundamental rights. That means they are infringing the fundamental rights. And Article 13 clearly states that anything that goes against the Fundamental Rights is null and void. Ok? Second thing, by remaining silent and not singing the National Anthem, they have disrespected our National Anthem here. You know, regarding our particular country, has any kind of question been raised here on it or not. This is a very, you know, important question which was raised and here the Supreme Court said that standing respectfully without

6:08 singing did not violate the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. So if you are anywhere in front of you where the National Anthem is being sung and you are standing silently. Standing in a respectful position. Even if you are not singing it, it does not mean that you are disrespecting the National Anthem or that you should be punished in any way under this law. Since the children neither disturbed nor prevented others from singing. Clearly, the children have neither created any disturbance nor are they stopping other students from singing. We are not singing, you also should not sing. Ok? There was no disruption in any way. Ok? What they were doing? What was the intention behind that? There

6:55 was no bad intention. He was just following his faith. And it was believed in their faith that the National Anthem cannot be sung. Ok? So here the right to freedom of expression includes the right to remain silent especially when rooted in sincere religious convictions. Ok? So basically the right to remain the right to speech also includes the right not to speak. Ok? Especially when you have a very good and solid reason behind it. Ok? See next. The children's religious beliefs were genuine. Whatever religious beliefs the children had were genuine. Of course there was no malafide intention. There was a good intention behind it. Forcing them to sing the anthem would infringe upon their religious freedom under

7:40 Article 25. And if the principal or school authorities or anyone else forcibly makes these kids sing the national anthem, then it will be considered that you are violating their Article 25 i.e. the right to follow any religion or faith. The Supreme Court ruled that their expulsion was unconstitutional. The children who were restituted from school were totally and totally against our Constitution. That is unconstitutional. That is why they should be re- admitted and the tolerance of constitutional values should be recognised. There should be tolerance for our constitutional values. Our tradition teaches tolerance, our philosophy

8:26 preaches tolerance and our constitution practices tolerance, let us not dilute it. Ok? So even in the aspect of constitutional tolerance the Supreme Court has thrown some light. And this is very varied. Ok? Also let us see what is the particular significance of this case. Isn't it? This very important case has emerged with us. And let us see what is the significance. Freedom of speech includes not to speak, nor it also includes right to remain silent one of the aspirations of Article 19. One religious liberty is recognised here where it is said that notions of administrative instructions cannot impeach upon fundamental rights, a corner

9:11 stone case for judicial protection of minority rights and individual conscience in India. Ok? So for all these things, this is a very significant judgement of Bijoy Emmanuel. Ok? So here this particular judgement is a very important judgement for us. Please download this judgement. Make sure to download all the content. And particularly there is a Google form below this video, you can fill it up. That's it guys. Do like the video if you find it helpful in any manner. Thank you so much.