Case Commentary – BIJOE EMMANUEL & ORS VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ORS

Author – Rubini B, Student of Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology.

Best Citation – Rubini B, Case Commentary – BIJOE EMMANUEL & ORS VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ORS, 2 (5) & 55 of 2022, IJLR.

ABSTRACT

The National Anthem which proves our Patriotism toward our country. The National Anthem shows our belief, culture, sufferings, cause, triumphs which   we all suffered and faced together. A song keeps all people in the country together as one. It’s played wherever; it gives you a homely presence and pride in our heart by hearing it. It has a sense of pride and strong emotions of Patriotism for the country. The National Anthem is played at assembly of school and college culturals, theatre, and in inauguration of programs and events. While playing it, we as a citizen need to stand by showing respect towards it and it inculate pride, respect, nationalism and a sense of unity and identity of our country. In India, The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1960; section 3 of the act has punishment of extended 3 years imprisonment or fine or both, when anyone interrupts or prevents or cause disturbance while singing National Anthem. The court has exercised its authority under Article 19(1)(a) of Indian constitution to protect people’s freedom of speech and expression and to maintain 25(1) constitutional principle, when the government has failed to do so. This paper is aimed to examine the supreme court order using article 19(1)(a) and 25(1) in the Constitution of India; 1949 in the case of BIJOE EMMANUEL Vs. STATE OF KERALA.

Keywords: National Anthem; Supreme Court; Jehovah’s Witness; Expulsion; Religious belief.

Case Title	BIJOE EMMANUEL & ORS V. STATE OF KERALA & ORS
Case No	CIVIL APPEAL NO. 870 OF 1986
Date Of The Order	11-08-1986
Jurisdiction	Supreme Court Of India
Quorum	Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chinnappa Reddy J
Author Of The Judgment	Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chinnappa Reddy J
Appellant	Bijoe, BinuMol, Bindu Emmanuel
Respondent	State of Kerala
Counsel For Appellant	Advocate F.S Nariman, T.S. Kishnamurthy Iyer, K.J. John and M. Jha for the Appellants.
Counsel For Respondent	Advocate G. Viswanatha Iyer and Mrs. Baby Krishnan for Respondent Advocate P.S. Poti, E.M.S Anam and James Vincent for the Respondents.
Acts And Sections Involved	Indian Constitution, 1949 Article 19(1)(a)Article 25(a)     Prevention Of Insult To National Honour Act, 1960 Section 3   –  Kerala Education Act, 1959 with the Kerala Education Rules, 1959Section 36, Chapter IX Rule-6.

I.             INTRODUCTION:

Supreme Court Justice C.O. Reddy has represented the law and hon’ble of Court and He is a gem of the Supreme Court. He is known for his Proactive Judgment which changed the judicial history of India. As a judge; before his retirement he gave landmark judgments by his extraordinary powers of the court of law under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25(1) in the Constitution of India; 1949 to do complete justice. By this paper; we analyses and clearly discuss this verdict regarding the importance of the National Anthem and Individual rights.

II.             FACTS OF THE CASE:

The appellant 3 students Bijoe; Binu Mol and Bindu Emmanuel who studied in a school in Kerala. They attend school religion assembly daily; when the National Anthem song; they don’t sing with other students due to their Jehovah’s Witnesses religious faith; but they stood up in attention by showing respect towards anthem and their two elder sisters also studied in the same school and done the same activity but no one notices it. In July 1985, one day a member of Legislature Assembly noticed their activity in assembly; he thought it was unpatriotic and appointed a commission to investigate. The Commission reported children well behaved and didn’t show unpatriotic towards the country. But the head mistress expelled students from the school following the instruction of the Deputy Inspector of School. The father of children pleaded with their head mistress to allow children’s inside the school but the head mistress shows her inability to do it.

Appellant filed writ petition in high court was rejected by a single learned judge and then division bench also rejected it. Later High Court passed an order according to the Kerala Education Act; 1959 under section 36 enables The Kerala Education Rules, 1959; Rule 6 of Chapter IX; it suspend or dismiss children’s who found guilty of deliberate insubordination, mischief, fraud, malpractice in examinations, conduct likely to cause negatively influences others etc. The High court aside respondent in this case, then appellate has filed an appeal to the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of Indian Constitution.

III.             ARGUMENTS FAVOUR OF APPELLANT:

1. Appellant claimed that students always stood up in attention when the national anthem was being sung and never showed disrespect towards the national anthem and their country.
2. They didn’t sing only due to their Jehovah’s Witnesses religious faith, which they didn’t allow them to do.
3. Appellant raised an issue that the expulsion of the students is justifiable? Such expulsion are not violations of their Fundamental Right under article 19(1)(a) and 25(1) in the Constitution of India?

IV.         ARGUMENTS FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT:

1. Respondents claimed that students did not sing the National Anthem; which shows their unpatriotic behavior and disrespect towards the National Anthem and our country by not singing it.
2. They justified their action according to the Kerala Education Act; 1959 and Kerala Education Rule; 1959, Chapter IX Rule 6.

V.         ORDER OF THE COURT:

• The Supreme Court gave verdict under Article 19(1)(a) of Indian Constitution giving Freedom of Speech and Expression by examining the education authorities action in Kharak Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh and Baleshwar Pradesh V. State of Bihar[1962] SUPP. SCR 369 cases and Article 25(1) gives the right to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of Part III and the right to Freedom of conscience to freely profess; practice; propagate religion are Fundamental Rights applicable to every citizen in a country.
• Making every student join in the singing of the National Anthem would violate their Jehovah’s Witnesses religious belief and breaches the rights under Article 19(1) (a) and Article 25(1) in the Constitution of India.
• The Supreme Court held that students are not guilty for not singing the National Anthem; they gave respect by standing up in attention and No legal provision obligates anyone to sing the National Anthem and it is not disrespectful or unpatriotic to the Anthem.
• The Supreme Court set High Court order aside and ordered to allow students again to study in school without any hindrance; sentenced appellant aside by the facts of the case.

VI.              CONCLUSION:

By these judgments, we understand our patriotism towards our country and basic rights toward the people in a society. Day by day society is updating and evolving more about the Fundamental rights of every citizen in the country and People in a country are following their religious belief strongly. And the importance of the National Anthem and its provisions regarding it, our tradition taught us tolerance; our philosophy preached tolerance and our constitution practices tolerance, hence we should not dilute it.

VII.            RELATED CASES LAWS:

1. Adelaide Company of Jehovah’s Witnesses    V.    The Commonwealth, 67     CLR 116 (Australian High Court).
2. Minersville School District     V.   Gobitis,    84     Law Ed. US 1376 ( American Supreme Court)
3. West Virginia State Board of Education V.     Barnett, 87     Law Ed. 1628 (American Supreme Court).
4. Donald V. The Board of Education for the City Hamilton, 1945 Ontario Reports 518.
5. Sheldon V. Fannin, 221 Federal suppl. 766 (United States District Court of Arizona).
6. The commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras V.  Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, [1954] SCR 1055.
7. SP Mittal etc. etc.    V Union of India.

VIII.          REFERENCE:

• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1508089/
• https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/8973.pdf

STATE OF MADRAS VERSUS CHAMPAKAM DARAIRAJAN

Author – S. Subhasree, Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology

ABSTRACT:

This judgement proved as a historic event and decision of the Supreme Court. It led to the 1st Amendment in the Constitution of India in relation to the reservation policy in India. The amendment included the adding of clause 4 under Article 15. The judgement accounts at the impugned Communal Government Order adopted before independence and in continuance even after the Constitution came into force. This order had the reservation policy on the foundation of caste system in the state maintained college institutions. The court held this government order to be void in nature. This judgement is important as it resolves the conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. It says that whenever the conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy arises, the Fundamental Rights hold the upper hand over the Directive Principles of State Policy. When a fundamental right is violated and directive principle is also in question, the preference will be of fundamental rights.

Keywords: Fundamental rights, DPSP, Reservation, Amendment

Case Commentary – STATE OF MADRAS VS CHAMPAKAM DORIAIRAJAN & ANOTHER

T. JAYAVARTHINI

STUDENT OF GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, CHENGALPATTU

Best Citation – T. JAYAVARTHINI, STATE OF MADRAS VS CHAMPAKAM DORIAIRAJAN & ANOTHER, 2 (5) & 48 of 2022, IJLR.

ABSTRACT

                This case mainly focus on Article 13, 29(2), 46 of constitution of India, The main objective of Article 13 is to secure the paramountcy of the constitution especially with regard to fundamental rights. Article 29 (2) States no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institutions maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. In this instance case the respondent has filed a petition in high court that the fundamental right has been infringed under Article 29(2) in the criterion of caste. State of Madras went appeal against the order given by the high court.

Keywords:- Supreme court, Reservation, Fundamental rights, Educational rights, Brahims and Non-Brahmins.

Case Commentary – BIJOE EMMANUEL VERSUS THE STATE OF KERALA

Akash singh

Student of ARMY LAW COLLEGE PUNE

Best Citation – Akash singh, Case Commentary – BIJOE EMMANUEL VERSUS THE STATE OF KERALA, 2 (5) & 45 of 2022, IJLR.

Abstract

The song Jana – gana – mana , composed originally in Bangla by Rabindranath Tagore, was adopted in its Hindi version by the Constituent Assembly as the National Anthem of India on January 24, 1950. Article 51A of the Indian constitution constitutes it as a constitutional duty. It makes every citizen’s duty to abide by the Constitution and respect its deal and institutions, the nation flag and thenational anthem. The Prevention of Insults to National Honours Act , 1971 is an Act of the Parliament of india which prohibits the disrespect or insult to the country’s national symbols , including the national flag, national emblem, national anthem, the constitution, and map of India including contempt of Indian constitution.

Keywords: Supreme Court, National Anthem.

Case Commentary – DEVIDAS RAMACHANDRA TULJAPURKAR VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS

Subhashini S & Anjanah G J

STUDENTS OF SASTRA DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY

Best Citation – Subhashini S & Anjanah G J, Case Commentary – DEVIDAS RAMACHANDRA TULJAPURKAR VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS, 2 (5) & 41 of 2022, IJLR.

ABSTRACT

“The relation between reality and relativity must haunt the Court’s evaluation of Obscenity, expressed in society’s pervasive humanity, not law’s penal perspective”

Krishna Iyer J^[1]

The Supreme Court issued a ruling in May 2015 that upheld a filthy poem about Gandhi, setting a new standard for obscenity when the subject is related to historical figures. The Hicklin Test, which was widely used to test obscenity, and more than 50 decisions from various jurisdictions addressing issues ranging from the appropriateness of tests to the right to freedom of speech and expression^[2] were also examined by the court in this decision.

Devidas Tuljapurkar, editorial director and publisher of a magazine for the All India Bank Association, filed an appeal in this matter. He has fought the charges against him for publishing a poetry by Marathi author Vasant Dattatray Gujjar in 1994. The sonnet “GANDHI MALA BHETLA” is said to have insulted Gandhi using vulgar and rude language, and its author was found responsible by the court. Three main areas of interest are covered by the case. It first brings up the shortcomings of the in-court examination of decency. Next considers the court’s clarifications regarding historically reputable figures and raises some relevant issues. The case concludes by advocating a better methodology and making arguments for dissecting the issue in light of its particular circumstances and the intended interest group.

Keywords: Obscenity, Article 19(1)(a), Historically esteemed personality, Section 292 IPC,

---

[1] Raj Kapoor and Ors. vs. State and Ors. (1980) 1 SCC 43

[2] Section 19(1)(a)

Case Commentary – ABHIRAM SINGH VERSUS C.D. COMMACHEN (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS

Amrutha B.N

Student of Vidyodaya Law College

Best Citation – Amrutha B.N, Case Commentary – ABHIRAM SINGH VERSUS C.D. COMMACHEN (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS, 2 (5) & 37 of 2022, IJLR.

ABSTRACT

The true essence of democracy is when the representatives are elected by people. The Representation of Peoples act 1951 gives us guidelines about, qualification of voters, preparation of electoral rolls, delimitation of constituencies, allocation of seats in the parliament, etc. The interpretation of Section 123(3) of the act, which gives about corrupt practices was questioned in the case of Abhiram Singh v. C.D Commachen by LRS. And others. The question in this case was if the “his” used in the section was questioned if it applies only to the candidates or the voter as well. This case is known as the electoral appeals case. This is an important case law with respect to competitive exams. Though not a very relevant case for our day-to-day legal practice, it still is an important case to have its knowledge. This paper is aimed at to examine the Supreme Court’s order  in the case of Abhiram Singh v. C.D Commachen by LRS. And others.

Keywords- The representation of peoples act 1951, electoral appeals case, corrupt practices, supreme court.

Case Commentary – DR. SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (AIR 2018 SC 1498)

Shraddha Sharma – Law graduate from Sardar Patel Subharti Institute of Law & Aadil Abbas – Law Graduate from SRM University

Best Citation – Shraddha Sharma & Aadil Abbas, Case Commentary – DR. SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (AIR 2018 SC 1498), 2 (5) & 32 of 2022, IJLR.

ABSTRACT

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Act was enacted to safeguard the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes people from different types of discrimination and atrocities and other problems they are facing in the society.

Recently Supreme Court announced the judgement of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan V. State of Maharashtra to prevent the misuse of the Act by Dalits and other SC and ST people. This verdict led to protests in various states of country by Dalit groups who shows disregards about the said judgement. This judgement is a landmark judgement in the history of the era.

Keywords : Supreme Court, Scheduled Caste, atrocities , Arrest, Right to Life etc

Case Commentary – BUDHADEV KARMASKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

P. RATHNA PRABHAVATHI

Chennai Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Pudupakkam.

Best Citation – P. RATHNA PRABHAVATHI, Case Commentary – BUDHADEV KARMASKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS., 2 (5) & 28 of 2022, IJLR.

Abstract

Even though the Indian Constitution guarantees  equal rights and powers to every person in the nation, it is repeatedly necessary to reclaim this right to some weaker peoples like sex workers. In the case of Budhadev Karmaskar v State of West Bengal , a sex worker was murdered in brutal manner for denied to have sexual intercourse with the appellant. So the sex workers are challenged to live in the society. Prostitutes are not considered as a normal people because many of them involved forced sexual intercourse. In this case, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, 1950 the right to life. This is one of the landmark judgement by the Supreme Court for the protection of the sex workers and give the wide interpretation of the Article 21, right to dignity of the sex workers. The Supreme Court’s decision to convert the current Criminal Appeal into a Suo Moto suit was a progressive move toward recognising the rights of India’s sex workers. Because the constitution protects their right to practise their profession and live a decent life as they are legally entitled to, it also protects their right to do so similarly to the rights of other citizens.

Keywords: Sex workers, Right to life with dignity, Right to practice profession , right to live  a decent life,

Case Commentaries – COMMON CAUSE VERSUS UNION OF INDIA

Gurrashmeet Singh

Student of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University, Sonepat.

Best Citation – Gurrashmeet Singh, Case Commentaries – COMMON CAUSE VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, 2 (5) & 24 of 2022, IJLR.

Abstract

This recent Supreme Court ruling on the subject of extensive advertising is examined in this case remark. The advertising, which were initially intended to inform the public about new government initiatives, citizen rights and entitlements, safety information, and information relating to public health, among other things, have become less effective. These advertisements have recently undergone a radical transformation in how they are printed and distributed, moving from commercials to political propaganda. This advertisement’s message not only devalued democracy as a whole, but it also stood in direct opposition to its core values. The general people are not only duped by such commercials that simply work to promote personality cults and political parties’ and candidates’ candidates’ images, but they are also forbidden from questioning them. When the same commercials sway voters’ decisions by revealing the candidates’ own party affiliation, this also violates the concept of fair elections. The Court only lately understood the significance of putting a stop to the problem in light of the extravagant expenditure on such advertisements made with tax payer money and money from the national exchequer. The statement examines the precedents on the topic and explores the issue in relation to the ideas that the Court has accepted or rejected. The comment’s broader context identifies this case as a significant perspective on the subject matter where the Legislature has not yet codified a law.

Keywords: Democracy, Expenditure, Fair Election, Guidelines, Informative Advertisements, Political Advertisements, Political Mileage, Public Funds

Case Commentary – BABULAL PARATE VERSUS STATE OF BOMBAY AND ANOTHER

Manasvi Pandey

Student of Shri Vaishnav Institute of Law, Indore

Best Citation – Manasvi Pandey, Case Commentary – BABULAL PARATE VERSUS STATE OF BOMBAY AND ANOTHER, 2 (5) & 20 of 2022, IJLR.

ABSTRACT

The State Reorganisation Act 1956 has re organized territory of Bombay and created a composite state under Section 8 (1) of the act the constitution of India in the first part talks about the Union and its territory and gives a wide range of power to the Parliament to constitute and state and alter it under section 3 Article 3 of Indian constitution. In formation of Bombay under the State Re-organisation act was not proposed in the bill of State Re-organisation and the was sought to be impugning of article 3 Indian Constitution this paper talks about the analysis on the case of Babulal parate versus state of Bombay and another on whether the creation of Bombay under the State Re-organisation Act 1956 not originally proposed in the bill of the state of article 3 Indian constitution or not.

KEYWORDS: Supreme Court, state, Constitution, Bombay, union, parliament.