Why the Judgment Matters?

The Supreme Court used this case to underline that the Constitution protects not just popular beliefs but also minority faith-based practices, as long as they do not disturb public order. The decision is often cited to explain that patriotism cannot be forced by compelling uniform conduct, and that respect for national symbols includes the right to stay silent respectfully.

Constitutional Framework Involved

Two fundamental rights were central to the Court’s reasoning:

• Article 19(1)(a) – the freedom that includes the right not to speak.
• Article 25(1) – protection of conscience and religious practices unless they harm public order, morality, or health.

Departmental circulars or school guidelines cannot override these rights unless backed by law having statutory force.

Background of the Dispute

Three schoolchildren from Kerala, belonging to the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses, refused to sing the National Anthem. Their faith does not permit them to participate in activities they consider symbolic worship of any authority other than God. However, they always stood up during the anthem as a mark of respect.

The school expelled them.
The Kerala High Court upheld the expulsion.
The matter reached the Supreme Court.

Core Issue Before the Court

Was the school justified in removing the students for declining to sing the National Anthem, despite their maintaining respectful silence, or did this action violate their constitutional freedoms?

Reasoning Adopted by the Supreme Court

The Court focused on the conduct of the children.
They neither insulted the anthem nor disrupted the assembly; they simply refrained from singing due to sincere religious conviction. This, the Court held, was protected behaviour.

The judges also clarified that:

• Freedom of expression includes the freedom not to utter a particular message.
• The right to conscience gives space for negative liberty — to abstain from an activity forbidden by one’s faith.
• Executive instructions of the Education Department lacked statutory authority and were insufficient to curtail fundamental rights.

Since there was no threat to public order or disrespect to national symbols, state interference was unjustified.

Verdict

The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s ruling and ordered the immediate readmission of the children. The judgment reaffirmed that the Constitution is built on the idea of tolerance and that dissent, when peacefully expressed, cannot be penalised.