Explanation:

Option (d) is correct Supplementary notes: Bijoe Emmanuel case

Bijoe Emmanuel case stands as one of the pillars of free speech in India. It pertained to the suspension of children Bijoe Emmanuel, a Class 10 student, Binu, and Bindu from their school at Kidangoor on July 26, 1986 on the ground that they refused to recite the national anthem during the morning assemblies.

In this case, students of a school in Kerala were expelled for not singing the National Anthem. They followed the religious faith of Jehovah’s witnesses and objected to singing the “Jana Gana Mana” because it was allegedly against their religious beliefs. The case went to the Kerala High Court when the father of the children fi led a writ petition which was dismissed as the high court felt that the National Anthem did not have any words that could offend anybody’s religious sentiments. The father of the children then fi led a special leave petition in the Supreme Court and the apex court found that the children’s right to freedom of expression was violated on expulsion from the school, as even though the children did not participate in singing the National Anthem, they did stand in respect when it was being sung by others.

The Supreme Court in this case gave the judgement that, Article 19(a), which guarantees freedom of speech, and Article 25, which gives the right to freedom of conscience to freely profess, practice and propagate religion are fundamental rights which are guaranteed to every citizen. Over here the reason to compel each and every student to join in the singing of the National Anthem despite his/her genuine concern that it would violate their religious belief clearly breaches the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India.

So, in this case, the Supreme Court held that the three students were not guilty of disrespect to the National Anthem just because they refused to sing it. Moreover, they did stand in respect whenever the National Anthem was being sung. The reasoning behind this judgement was that there was no legal provision that obligates anyone to sing the National Anthem, and it is not disrespectful to the Anthem. The court ordered that the students be permitted to study in the school without any hindrance. Further, the court had observed that our traditions taught us tolerance, our philosophy preaches tolerance, our Constitution practices tolerance and hence we should not dilute it.