Refine Search

Religious Freedom Upheld in India

THE August 11, 1986, Supreme Court verdict in New Delhi took millions by surprise. At a time when nationalism was running strong, few expected that the religious freedom of a mostly unknown religious minority would be respected. But after a close examination of the facts, India’s highest court decreed that the children of Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot be compelled to sing the national anthem. In a landmark decision the court said:

“We are satisfied, in the present case, that the expulsion of the three children from the school for the reason that because of their conscientiously held religious faith, they do not join the singing of the national anthem in the morning assembly though they do stand up respectfully when the anthem is sung, is a violation of their fundamental right ‘to freedom of conscience and freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.’”

Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy and Justice M. M. Dutt of the Supreme Court of India were the judges who heard the now famous anthem case of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

How the Issue Arose

Nearly half of the 8,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses in India are found in the small state of Kerala in the southernmost part of this vast nation. In most schools there, the national anthem is sung daily. The custom in the particular school in question was for all the students to sing the anthem in chorus. The children of Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, merely stood while the others sang. As the Supreme Court judgment said: “No one bothered. No one worried. No one thought it disrespectful or unpatriotic. The children were left in peace and to their beliefs.” This was the situation for years.

Then came July 1985. A member of the State Legislative Assembly objected that he thought it was unpatriotic for anyone to refuse to sing the national anthem. A discussion followed, and what was discussed was published in many prominent newspapers in the country.

The authorities of most schools in Kerala, who until then were sympathetic to the children of Jehovah’s Witnesses, became afraid because of the objection in the Legislative Assembly and the negative publicity. As a result, the children of Jehovah’s Witnesses were dismissed from one school after another.

Children Versus the State

V. J. Emmanuel, whose three minor children, Bijoe, Binu Mol, and Bindu, were expelled from school, sought legal remedy. Mr. Emmanuel was firmly convinced that the law was on his side. He knew that, according to Article 25 (1) of the Constitution of India, “all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.”

Eventually a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala heard the case, but it rejected the appeal of V. J. Emmanuel. This was a great shock because the Constitution of India does not say that the national anthem must be sung to show respect for it. It only says that citizens should “abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem.” Neither is there any other law requiring all citizens of India to sing the national anthem.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of India. In overruling the Kerala High Court, the Supreme Court judgment said: “The High Court misdirected itself and went off at a tangent. They considered, in minute detail, each and every word and thought of the National Anthem and concluded that there was no word or thought in the National Anthem which could offend anyone’s religious susceptibilities.” Yet, as the Supreme Court correctly noted, “that is not the question at all.”

The question is a religious one, namely, the right of individuals to maintain their freedom of worship. The fact is, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not sing the national anthem of any country. Such anthems are, in effect, hymns or prayers set to music, and Jehovah’s Witnesses conscientiously object to singing them. “They desist from actual singing,” the Indian Supreme Court judgment understandingly explained, “because of their honest belief and conviction that their religion does not permit them to join any rituals except it be in their prayers to Jehovah their God.”

Significantly, the Constitution of India guarantees “freedom of speech and expression,” which includes the freedom to be silent. That was what the children were doing when the anthem was sung during the morning assembly at school​—they remained silent. Yet, the Kerala educational authorities had, in effect, imposed a ban on silence. So the question arose whether such a ban was consistent with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court concluded on this matter: “We may at once say that there is no provision of law which obliges anyone to sing the National Anthem nor do we think that it is disrespectful to the National Anthem if a person who stands up respectfully when the National Anthem is sung does not join the singing.”

As noted earlier, the duty of every citizen, according to the Constitution, is to ‘respect the National Anthem.’ Regarding such respect, the Prevention of Insults to National Honor Act of 1971 says: “Whoever intentionally prevents the singing of the National Anthem or causes disturbance to any assembly engaged in such singing shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fines, or with both.” The children of Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, had never prevented anyone from singing the national anthem. They had never caused any disturbance to any assembly engaged in such singing.

A Threat to National Unity?

One of the State’s arguments was that singing the national anthem was essential for the unity and integrity of the country. Yet, does the forced singing of a national anthem really contribute to a country’s unity or to the integrity of its citizens?

Interestingly, the Indian national anthem is only in the language of one state, and so it is not understood by the majority of Indians who sing it. Thus, for the majority, singing the national anthem is probably meaningless and constitutes, basically, an empty ritual. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not join in such rituals. They pray only to their God, Jehovah.

It was also argued that if the Supreme Court judgment went in favor of Jehovah’s Witnesses, it could threaten the security of the country. But Jehovah’s Witnesses in India are a small minority, numbering only some 8,000 persons. Would such a small group be a threat to a nation of over 800 million people? Besides, Jehovah’s Witnesses are noted worldwide for their honesty and obedience to the laws of the governments under which they reside.

In Nigeria a lawyer said: ‘Witnesses are tax-paying and law-abiding citizens. Any Witness who can be honest with his religion to the extent of obeying it at the risk of losing certain privileges will be equally honest in most other things. The reason he refuses to steal government money while his other colleagues sing the national anthem and yet embezzle funds is that his Bible which asks him not to sing the national anthem also said he should not steal.’

The last sentence of the landmark Supreme Court judgment is noteworthy. It said: “We only wish to add: our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy teaches tolerance; our constitution practices tolerance; let us not dilute it.” Will the government and the leaders appreciate this fine thought? Will the decision by the Supreme Court remain final? Only time will tell.

[Pictures on page 23]

The three children who respectfully declined to share in a patriotic ceremony

The dedicated family of the three children

These four persons read of the court case, studied the Bible, and were baptized