Judgment :- 1. The theme of this appeal is the National Anthem of India. The appellants are the petitioners in a writ petition. The petitioners complained that singing the National Anthem offended their religious freedom. The learned judge thought otherwise. And his judgment has given rise to the appeal now before us. Background of the writ petition: 2. The petitioners were the students, of an age range of ten to fourteen, in a school near Kottayam. They belong to the religious sect known as "Jehovah's Witnesses." The school has its morning assembly of all the students. In conformity with the instructions of the Educational authorities in the State, the students are to chant the National Anthem and take a pledge before they proceed to their class rooms and commence their studies. According to the petitioners, the chanting of the National Anthem'Jana Gana Mana' is opposed to their religious tenets, which uncompromisingly insist upon the worship of Jehovah and none else as the God. Singing the National Anthem, according to them, involves worship of a God or a concept other than Jehovah, and therefore constitutes an infringement of a valuable Fundamental Right of religious freedom. The Schools and the singing of 'Jana Gana Mana': 3. It is not as though the singing of the National Anthem was introduced in the schools in the State, all on a sudden some time in 1985. The schools in the State, including the one in which the appellants study, are governed by the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder. R.9 of Chapter VIII points to the necessity to impress upon the students among others, of the "love of one's country and pride in her past and faith in her future." The circulars issued by the competent educational authorities also deal with the National Anthem. As early as in 1961, a Code of Conduct had been evolved for pupils and teachers based on the recommendation of a sub-committee appointed in that behalf. Under the topic 'Patriotism', it is provided: 1. Environment should be created in the school to develop the right kind of patriotism in the children. Neither religion nor party nor anything of this kind should stand against one's love of the country. 2. For national integration, the basis must be the school. 3. National Anthem. Under the topic 'Patriotism', it is provided: 1. Environment should be created in the school to develop the right kind of patriotism in the children. Neither religion nor party nor anything of this kind should stand against one's love of the country. 2. For national integration, the basis must be the school. 3. National Anthem. As a rule, the whole school should participate in the singing of the National Anthem." (vide Ext. C4) (emphasis supplied) The Director of Public Instruction had on 18-2-1970 issued a circular, Ext.C3, presumably on the basis of G.O MS. No. 12/70/Edn. dated 7-1-1970. Para.2 thereof is relevant in the present context. It reads: "It is compulsory that all schools shall have the morning Assembly every day before actual instruction begins. The whole school with all the pupils and teachers shall be gathered for the Assembly. After the singing of the Anthem, the whole school shall, in one voice, take the National Pledge before marching back to the classes." (emphasis supplied) Attitude of Jehovah's Witnesses to Jana Gana Mana: 4. Jehovah's witnesses, had even earlier taken the stand that they would not chant the National Anthem as it would barter away their religious freedom. They had even sought, by representations before the District Educational Officer and the Government on 15-12-1964 and 11-6-1968, exemption of their pupils from participating in the singing of National Anthem. The Educational Authorities and Government had not hesitated to express its attitude and approach in the matter clearly and categorically. The request for exemption was rejected by the District Officer and by Government (Vide Annexures P proceedings issued by the D.E.O., Kanjirappally on 30-1-1965 and Annexure Q order of the State Government dated 11-9-1968). The problem does not appear to have surfaced in a serious dimension thereafter, until the recent events. Recent events and filing of the Original Petition: 5. On receipt of a complaint about the refusal of the petitioners to sing the National Anthem, the Deputy Director of Education visited the school on 25-7-1985. There was an appraisal of the situation by the Deputy Director himself. The attitude and approach of the students were ascertained from them directly. In the wake of deliberations that followed the Headmistress insisted upon the petitioners also singing the National Anthem. The petitioners did not budge from their stand. The school also was rigid in its attitude. There was an appraisal of the situation by the Deputy Director himself. The attitude and approach of the students were ascertained from them directly. In the wake of deliberations that followed the Headmistress insisted upon the petitioners also singing the National Anthem. The petitioners did not budge from their stand. The school also was rigid in its attitude. A request to exempt the children from singing, awaiting a further Government Order, was not acceded to by the School. The petitioners then felt that they should seek through this Court, relief against what they felt to be a denial of the freedom of religion under Art.25 and 26 as also the freedom of speech guaranteed under Art.19(1) (a) of the Constitution. The Original Petition was filed soon thereafter. Respondents in the case and their contentions: 6. The State and the authorities under it were respondents 1 to 3 in the Original Petition, and the Headmistress of the school, respondent No. 4. The Rationalist Association- "Yukthi Vadi Sanghom" which had been working for quite a long time in the socio-cultural fields of Kerala State, got itself impleaded as the 5th respondent, and opposed the claims and contentions of the petitioners. Yet another group to oppose the petitioners was the Institute of Social Welfare, Ernakulam, (which has some of the militant dissidents who left Jehovah's witnesses in protest against their activities) which got impleaded as the 6th respondent. No counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the State and its officers, the Headmistress of the school, and the Rationalist Association. The 6th respondent, however, filed a detailed counter-affidavit and furnished much materials in support, and in substantiation, of the stand it took. Findings of the Single Judge: 7. The learned single judge held that the Jehovah's Witnesses were "only the members of a charitable society and not a religious denomination, and consequently not entitled to the protection of Art.25 and 26. (vide Para.19). It was further found that the believers of Christianity irrespective of the question whether they belong to Jehovah's Witnesses or otherwise were subject to the governing authorities and consequently bound to obey the directions issued by the Government and Governmental Authorities. (vide Para.19). It was further found that the believers of Christianity irrespective of the question whether they belong to Jehovah's Witnesses or otherwise were subject to the governing authorities and consequently bound to obey the directions issued by the Government and Governmental Authorities. And that Art.51A of the Constitution, and the Departmental directions required that the petitioners though believers of the tenets of Jehovah's Witnesses, are bound along with other students to sing in chorus the National Anthem, as a political duty, (vide Para.26). The learned judge observed: "The conduct of the members of Jehovah's Witnesses in not showing unqualified respect to Constitution, the National Anthem etc. would endanger the security of the Nation in that same will develop, among the citizens a tendency to ignore the mandates of the Constitution" Pointing out that the Code of Conduct and the Circular of the Director of Public Instruction referred to earlier are issued with the high objectives of maintaining the integrity, unity and sovereignty of the Nation, and that the students must sing National Anthem in chorus, the learned judge opined that the conduct of the petitioners in not participating in the singing of the National Anthem "may have a very bad influence on the other pupils." The Writ Appeal: 8. All the findings of the learned Single Judge have been assailed in appeal. Having regard to the importance of the issue, we are told that this is the first time the issue is raised in an Indian Court-and considering the fact that the grievance is voiced by a religious minority in relation to a cherished freedom of religion, we have heard all the parties at length; Jehovah's Witnesses-Whether a religious denomination: 9. It was, inter alia, contended that the mere fact that some among the Jehovah's Witnesses formed themselves into a charitable society or other corporate entity would not detract from the fact that they belong to a religious sect and a religious denomination. The very many litigative fights here and elsewhere, which have projected their common faith and organisation as also designation by a distinct name, for a fairly long time now, have been referred to in that connection. (vide the decision of the Australian High Court reported in Adelaide Company of Jehovah's Witnesses Inc. The very many litigative fights here and elsewhere, which have projected their common faith and organisation as also designation by a distinct name, for a fairly long time now, have been referred to in that connection. (vide the decision of the Australian High Court reported in Adelaide Company of Jehovah's Witnesses Inc. v. The Commonwealth, 67 C. L. R.116, the judgment of the United States District Court, Arizona, dated 29-8-1963, and the decision of the Supreme Court of Colorado, dated 27-3-1944 and the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, dated 14-6-1943.) There is force in this contention. We shall assume for the purpose of the appeal that the Jehovah's Witnesses constitute a religious denomination and that they could rightly invoke Art.25 and 26 of the Constitution. Contentions based on Art.25 and 26 of the Constitution: 10. We shall now proceed to consider the serious question relating to the infringement of Art.25 and 26 of the Constitution. (i) Pleadings of the petitioners: 11. It is perhaps desirable that the essential pleadings of the petitioners are referred to in that context. On the question of their religious belief, they stated: "One of their most fundamental religious tenets is that they should worship only Jehovah their God and they should not participate in any ritual other than functions which involve the worship of God." After referring to the practice relating to the singing of 'Jana Gana Mana' in the school and about the participation of the students in such singing, the petition proceeds to state: "They (the petitioners) desist from actual singing only because of their honest belief and conviction that their religion does not permit them to join any rituals except if it be in their prayers to Jehovah their God." In Para.S, it is stated that Jehovah is the exclusive God and that he alone should be the object of worship or the conferor of blessings and that no other should be the object of worship or religious reverence and that singing of the National Anthem will be an act contrary to their religious faith and contrary to their conscience. "It is therefore a conscientious and religious objection to them to participate in singing the National Anthem." (ii) Basis of the religious objection: 12. "It is therefore a conscientious and religious objection to them to participate in singing the National Anthem." (ii) Basis of the religious objection: 12. The religious basis of the petitioners' objection to sing the National Anthem was sought to be demonstrated with reference to passages occurring in the sayings, sermons and psalms as contained in the Holy Bible. Reference was thus made to Chapter XX of Exodus, verses 13 to 15 in Deutronormy, verse 18 in Paslms 83, Chapter III of Daniel, verse 10 of Mathew and Chapter XIII of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, among others. Noted encyclopaedias and dictionaries, as for example, Words and Phrases, Permanent Edn., Page 9 and Webster's Third New International Dictionary, page 1213, also refer to some of the strong beliefs of Jehovah's witnesses. 13. The core of the religious belief, however, appears to be what is specifically referred to in relation to National Anthem itself in the article entitled 'Christian Conscience and the State' published in'Awake' dated 8-8-1963: "NATIONAL ANTHEM National Anthem are, in part at least, hymns or Prayers set to music and give expression to petitions or praise to 'God Standing when the anthem is played, or a similar act, carries with it a significance similar to saluting a flag." (emphasis supplied) 14. The objection to salute the National Flag, in turn, is on the ground that they regard the flag as an image or representation of the State and consequently bowing or saluting it is considered to be a violation of the second commandment recorded in the Bible at Exodus 20: 4, 5, which states: "You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or that is in the earth beneath or that is ;in the waters under the earth. You must not bow down to them nor be induced to serve them, because I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion." (emphasis supplied) The singing of the National Anthem is therefore taken objection to on the ground that it involves the worship of a God or thing other than Jehovah. Whether this complaint is justified with reference to the National Anthem of India, needs to be examined now. The power of Courts vis-a-vis religious matters: 15. Whether this complaint is justified with reference to the National Anthem of India, needs to be examined now. The power of Courts vis-a-vis religious matters: 15. It is by now well-settled, as stated by the Supreme Court in Jagdishwaranand v. Police Commissioner, Calcutta, A.I.R. 1984 S.C 51 at 56: "Courts have the power to determine whether a particular rite or observance is regarded as essential by the tenets of a particular religion." A distinction is to be made in that regard between what is essentially a religious rite and what could be termed as accretions thereto. Gajendragadkar J. in Durgah Committee v. Hussain Ali, A.I R.1961 S.C. 1402, while considering the scope and ambit of Art.25 and 26 of the Constitution stated: "it may not be out of place incidentally to strike a note of caution and observe that in order chat the practices in question should be treated as a part of religion they must be regarded by the said religion as its essential and integral part; otherwise even purely secular practices which are not an essential or an integral part of religion are apt to be clothed with a religious form and may make a claim for being treated as religious practices within the meaning of Art.26. Similarly even practices though superstitious beliefs and may in that sense be extraneous and unessential accretions to religion itself. Unless such practices are found to constitute an essential and integral part of a religion their claim for the protection under Art.26 may have to be carefully scrutinised; in other words, the protection must be confined to such religious practices as are an essential and an integral part of it and no other." While considering the question, we have borne in mind the principles discernible from judicial decisions of the courts in India and outside. The decisions of our own Supreme Court starting from Shirur Mutt case and now resting with Auroville case and Anandamargi case have considerably illumined the path. (See Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Skirur Mutt, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 282. Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 255. Veerabadran Chettiar v. Ramaswami Naicker, A.I.R. 1958 S.C.1032. Durgah Committee v. Hussain Ali, A.I.R. 1962 S.C.1402. Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 853. Shri. Govindlalji v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1963 S.C.1638. Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 255. Veerabadran Chettiar v. Ramaswami Naicker, A.I.R. 1958 S.C.1032. Durgah Committee v. Hussain Ali, A.I.R. 1962 S.C.1402. Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 853. Shri. Govindlalji v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1963 S.C.1638. S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1983 S.C.1. and Jagdiswaranand v. Police Commissioner, Calcutta, A. I. R.1984 S.C. 51). 16. We shall embark upon a discussion of the issue by making a brief reference to the concepts of anthem, the National Anthem, the genesis of Jana Gana Mana, the background in which,'Jana Gana Mana' happened to be adopted as a National Anthem, and its true import and character. What is an anthem?: 17. An anthem may be taken as a song of praise; and national anthem would mean the official patriotic song of a nation, sung or played on certain public occasions. National Anthems arouse feelings of love for the country and pride in its tradition: be it God Save the Queen of England or the Star-Spangled Banner of America or the La Marseillaise of France or the Hymn of the Soviet Union. Being a song, it has music as one of its essential component. La Marseillaise was written in 1792 when the French Revolution was going on; and Rouget de Lisie wrote both words and music to express the patriotic excitement of the time. The Dutch National Anthem is noted for its oldest tunes. Mozart, the 18th century composer gave tune to the Austrian National Anthem. Singing the National Anthem is entirely and essentially a secular exercise. Genesis of Jana Gana Mana: 18. Though much assistance was not forthcoming from the State in relation to genesis of the National Anthem, some materials could be gathered on these aspects. About the time and auspices under which Jana Gana Mana was composed and sung by Tagore, Dr. Vivek Bhattacharya writes: "JANA GANA MANA In 1912, Rabindranath composed "Jana Gana" the National Anthem of India. It was tuned and sung by him first in March, 1912 at his Jorosanko residence in the presence, among others, of Mahatma Gandhi, Lokamanya Balgangadhar Tilak, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya and Lala Lajpat Rai." (emphasis supplied) A more detailed discussion on the song is given in Chap.20 of that book. It was first sung at the 26th session of the Indian National Congress on December 27,1911. It was first sung at the 26th session of the Indian National Congress on December 27,1911. The proceedings of the 26th session of the Indian National Congress bear this out. It is recorded therein: "The proceedings (of the Congress session) commenced with a patriotic song composed by Babu Rabindra Nath Tagore." The media, contemporaneously, reported about the singing of that patriotic song. The newspaper edited by Surendranath Banerjee, (the veteran moderate Congress leader) stated: "The proceedings commenced with a patriotic song composed by Babu Rabindranath Tagore, the leading poet of Bengal, Janaganamana adhinayaka." Jana Gana Mana was again sung at the Indian National Congress held in Calcutta itself in 1917. The first session opened with Vande Mataram. On the third day the session started with Janaganamana. The 'Statesman' of December 30th, 1917, referred to that event as the singing of "a national song composed by Sri. Rabindranath Tagore." To the same effect were the reports in the other newspapers like 'Bengalee' and 'Amrita Bazar Patrika'. As to the soul and spirit of that song, much could be gathered from what Chitta Ranjan Das stated about Janaganamana on that occasion. He said: "Brother delegates, at the very outset I desire to refer to the song to which you have just listened. It is a song of the glory and victory of India. We stand here today on this platform for the glory and victory of India (cheers)." (emphasis supplied) (Official Report of the Indian National Congress, Third day's proceedings, Page 108). The reports in other newspapers about C. R. Das's speech also refer to his characterisation of Janaganamana as a 'song of the victory of India " 19. The song attracted wider attention later. The poet's translated version was first published in the Modern Review in February, 1918. He himself rendered another English version next year when he undertook a journey to South India. The song was popularly known as the Morning Song of India. Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose adopted Janaganamana as the National Anthem immediately after the formation of the Indian National Army. The song was sung on memorable occasions, when Subhas Chandra Bose proclaimed his idea of forming the I. N. A from Singapore on July 5,1943 and when he proclaimed the formation of the Azad Hind Government on October 21, 1943. (Sec Relevance of Tagore by Dr. Vivek Bhattacharya, Pages 153 to 159). The song was sung on memorable occasions, when Subhas Chandra Bose proclaimed his idea of forming the I. N. A from Singapore on July 5,1943 and when he proclaimed the formation of the Azad Hind Government on October 21, 1943. (Sec Relevance of Tagore by Dr. Vivek Bhattacharya, Pages 153 to 159). Adoption of Jana Gana Mana as National Anthem: 20. We shall now proceed to describe the background in which the 'Jana Gana Mana' happened to be adopted as the National Anthem of India. It is well known that the Constituent Assembly of India was formed virtually as a culmination of an attempt in the transfer of power from alien hands to the people of India. The task of framing the Constitution for the independent Indian Republic had been completed towards the end of November, 1949. Some of the provisions of the Constitution, including Art.379 and 380 came into force on 26-11-1949 (vide Art.394, Part XXII). By virtue of Art.379 and 380, the Constituent Assembly became the provisional Parliament and the President of the Constituent Assembly became the President of India to function as such until a President, elected under the provisions of the Constitution, entered office. It was before such a Parliament that the President of India made the announcement on 24-1-1950, regarding the National Anthem. The announcement reads: "Mr. President: There is one matter which has been pending for discussion, namely the question of the National Anthem. At one time it was thought that the matter might be brought up before the House and a decision taken by the House by way of a resolution. But it has been felt that, instead of taking a formal decision by means of a resolution, it is better if I make a statement with regard to the National Anthem. Accordingly I make this statement. The composition consisting of the words and music known as Jana Gana Mana is the National Anthem of India, subject to such alterations in the words as the Government may authorise as occasion arises; and the song Vande Mataram, which has played a historic part in the struggle for Indian freedom, shall be honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana and shall have equal status with it. (Applause). I hope this will satisfy the Members." (Constituent Assembly Debates, Official Report, Vol. XII, dated 24-1-1950). Jana Gana Mana' is the National Anthem and not its translation: 21. (Applause). I hope this will satisfy the Members." (Constituent Assembly Debates, Official Report, Vol. XII, dated 24-1-1950). Jana Gana Mana' is the National Anthem and not its translation: 21. One other thing which need be borne in mind is that what has been recognised by the provisional Parliament as the National Anthem is the song as it starts with'Jana Gana Mana', and not its English translation. We have not obtained an official rendering in English of the National Anthem. A translation made by the poet himself was made available to us. What we have to consider is the Jana Gana Mana with its content and concept in all its intensity and amplitude. A note on translation and the English translation of Jana Gana mono: 22. It would be useful to bear in mind a note of caution regarding translations in general and about translations of Tagore's songs in particular. 23. Regarding translations, there have been always that supreme difficulty which a French wit mentioned: "When they are beautiful they are not faithful; and when they are faithful they are not beautiful." Tagore himself had realised this difficulty. He had referred to the Bengali language with its special "atmosphere of our words and therefore the colour and music and life of them." (See Tagore's letter dated 20-4-1927 to William Rothenstein). It is little wonder then that while bringing out the English translation of some of the poems of Rabindranath Tagore, William Radice (who won the Newdigate Prize for poetry, and secured academic distinction in Bengali at the London School of Oriental and African Studies) candidly stated: "Let me simply say here that I do not believe you can translate songs, and I have not tried to translate songs in this book. Tagore himself said in Creative Unity (1922) that a song without its melody is like a butterfly whose wings have been plucked, and in My Reminiscences we read of his reluctance to publish books of the words of his songs, for that very reason." 24. Humayun Kabir while writing the introduction to the "Hundred and One Rays," (a publication in Malayalam of Tagore's poems published by the Sahithya Academy) has also alluded to the heavy depletion of the beauty of ideas and fantasy of music in the English translations. Humayun Kabir while writing the introduction to the "Hundred and One Rays," (a publication in Malayalam of Tagore's poems published by the Sahithya Academy) has also alluded to the heavy depletion of the beauty of ideas and fantasy of music in the English translations. Krishna Kripalani, the noted Biographer of Rabindranath Tagore, also expressed himself in fairly strong terms about the futility in attempting translations of Tagore's poems and songs into other languages. He said: "Though the poet himself translated several of these poems the present writer feels that it is better not to attempt the impossible. The author's own attempt was suicidal; ours can only be murderous." While therefore we are clear that the English translation does not convey the soul and spirit of Jana Gana Mana, we shall not ourselves attempt to strip it tegument from tegument and to project a possible translation of the song. The rough translation attempted of the poem, cannot therefore be treated as the National Anthem as adopted by the Provisional Parliament. Jana Gana Mana and emphasis given on some words in Jana Gana Mana: 25. We shall now extract the full text of 'Jana Gana Mana for facility of easy reference. It will be helpful for commenting upon the emphasis placed by counsel on some of the lines thereof: "Jana-gana-mana-adhinayaka jaya he Bharata-bhagya-vidhata Punjaba-Sindu-Gujarata-Marata-Dravida-Utkala-Banga Vindhya-Himachala-Yamuna-Ganga Uchchhala-Jaladhi-tarao ga Tava subha name Jage, Tava subha asisa mage, Gathe tava jaya-gatha, Jana-gana-mangala-dayake jaya he Bharata-bhagya-vidhathe Jaya he, jaya he, jaya he, Jaya jaya jaya jaya, he." According to counsel, concept of God is involved in the first two lines reading: "Jana-gana-man--adhinayake jaya he Bharata-bhagya-vidhata" and in the later lines: "Tava subba name Jage, Tava subha asisa mage." The word 'adhinayaka' in the context in which it is employed docs not import the concept of a God. Even the word 'Ruler' may be inappropriate as a translation of the term 'adhinayaka'. 'Adhinayaka' would ordinarily only indicate a superiority of leadership or over-lordship. The word 'vidhate' can have many meanings. It may indicate, in a traditional sense, the creator; or the doer of all actions. It may also mean as the person who gives or makes. 'Bharata-bhagya-vidhate' in the context would not therefore import any element of 'Dispenser of Destiny'. 'Adhinayaka' would ordinarily only indicate a superiority of leadership or over-lordship. The word 'vidhate' can have many meanings. It may indicate, in a traditional sense, the creator; or the doer of all actions. It may also mean as the person who gives or makes. 'Bharata-bhagya-vidhate' in the context would not therefore import any element of 'Dispenser of Destiny'. Similarly, in the last lines where reference is made to the singing of the auspicious name and the proffering of auspicious blessings no concept of 'God' enters into the lines. Anyone reasonably acquainted with the liberal views Tagore entertained as regards religion and God, cannot imagine that the Poet would confine God as circumscribed by the geographical limits of the States mentioned therein, with the rivers that water it, or with such boundaries of the Himalayan mountains and their marvellous clouds or the Indian Ocean and its restless waves. Some indication of the Poet's attitude towards Religion and about the background of a family tradition of love towards Motherland is seen in his own book 'Reminiscences'. 26. On religion, even in his youth Tagore had a balanced view. He noted the existence of the one class of educated men who would be "always thrusting themselves forward with unprovoked argumentation to cut to pieces all belief in God" and the other class "not of believers, but religious epicureans, who found comfort and solace in gathering together, and steeping themselves in pleasing sights, sounds and scents galore, under the garb of religious ceremonial; they luxuriated in the paraphernalia of worship." He says that these religious aberrations pained him, and proceeds to state: "The religious services which were held in our family I would have nothing to do with, I had not accepted them for my own." 27. Under a sub-topic "patriotism", Tagore refers to the entry into his family of many a foreign custom and asserts that "at its heart flames a national pride which has never flickered." He refers to an annual fair instituted with the assistance of his house and the "first attempt at a reverential realisation of India as our motherland." In particular, reference is made to a national anthem composed then by his second brother. He states: "My second brother's popular national anthem, "Bharater Jaya," was composed then." The annual fair had, as its features, the "singing of songs glorifying the motherland, the recitation of poems of the love of country" (Reminiscences by Rabindranath Tagore, Indian Edition, Macmillan and Company Limited, London, Page 186). 28. Read in the proper perspective, Jana Gana Mana could only mean the Poet's own well-tuned song glorifying India that is Bharath. 29. It is complained that the English translation particularly refers to such words as "the controller of destiny," "the Ruler of India" and that they import elements of worship. We are unable to agree. It is perfectly understandable that when a poet moves his gifted quill, imageries and epithets surge forward forming an iridescent cascade of ideas with magnificent momentum. It is not unusual that the same words are found in a devotional hymn and in a patriotic poem. A simple illustration would perhaps demonstrate the point. When it is said: " Table:#4 the reference is to the Goddess of Knowledge; and She is referred to as the giver of boon (" hctZ "). Yet, the lines of Vallathol (the reputed Malayalam Poet) reading: would be only understood as an ebullition of patriotic fervour towards the native soil of Kerala, as is further clear from the description of the country as one which rests its head in the green-linened mountains and placing the feet in the silver sands of the ocean. The country is no doubt referred as or as a giver of boon. However, anyone who has sung and re-sung those lines, could hardly think of it as a worship of supreme being or a Goddess. In one case the word is an attribute of the divinely quality and an object of worship. In the other, it is a poetic embellishment arising out of patriotic fervour to the land in which he was born and bred. Singing of the National Song not a religious ceremony: 30. The Supreme Court of United States held in Engle v. Vitale, 370 U. S.421 that the singing of the National Anthem is not a religious but a patriotic ceremony, intended to inspire devotion to and love of the country. The decision went further and said that any religious references therein are incidental and expressive only of the faith which as a matter of historical fact has inspired the growth of the Nation. The decision went further and said that any religious references therein are incidental and expressive only of the faith which as a matter of historical fact has inspired the growth of the Nation. As already noted above, the National Anthem of India, on its true and proper construction, does not even remotely refer to a God or other divine object of worship. In that respect it stands on a better footing and different from the Star-Spangled Banner of the United States. 31. The National Anthem cannot be likened to any other song sung by pupils of diverse denominations without any realisation of its import and content. Such was a case when, more than a century ago, a song: "The Sun of Righteousness is JESUS our Lord, Who on that day (of crucifixion) had wiped off our shame, Is even to this day our own dear friend; He is the prime cause of the Universe and our great Preserver." was sung in one of the Mission schools in the then Madras Presidency. Sir William Denison, in his book "Varieties of Vice-regal Life" deals with the singing of such a song in the following words: "A difficulty had been felt in some mission schools, with respect to a suitable prayer to be used daily on opening the school; our schoolmaster solved this by commencing, every day, with the Lord's prayer alone; and this though pre-eminently the Christian prayer, was never found to provoke any cavil or opposition from either Hindoo or Mussulman parents.' (See Volume II, Pages 172 and 194). Secular Character of the Indian Constitution: 32. The secular character of the Constitution is so pre-eminently prominent, that it has been so universally accepted by jurists and lawyers all over the world. Courts too have not been slow to recognise that secular character of the Constitution. Khanna J. in St. Xavier's College case emphasised that aspect in the following words: "Although the words secular state are not expressly mentioned in the Constitution, there can be no doubt that our Constitution makers wanted establishment of such a state. The provisions of the Constitution were designed accordingly," (See Sr. Xavier's College v. State of Gujarat, A. I. R.1974 S. C. 1389 at page 1414). 33. The secular character is not merely a prominent feature of the Constitution, but also one of the basic features of the Constitution. The provisions of the Constitution were designed accordingly," (See Sr. Xavier's College v. State of Gujarat, A. I. R.1974 S. C. 1389 at page 1414). 33. The secular character is not merely a prominent feature of the Constitution, but also one of the basic features of the Constitution. This has been so acknowledged and proclaimed by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharathi's case. Mark the observations reading: "The basic structure may be said to consist of the following features: (1) Supremacy of the Constitution; (2) Republican and Democratic forms of Government. (3) Secular character of the Constitution; (4) Separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary; (5) Federal character of the Constitution. (emphasis supplied) (See Kesavananda v. State of Kerala, A. I. R.1973 S. C. 1461) 34. The Constitution was born with such essentially and exclusively secular character. Secularism runs through the entire fabric of the Constitution as a golden thread. The background in which the Constitution was ushered in, would demonstrate beyond doubt the secular character of the Constitution. 35. The secularism so clearly implicit and transparent in the scheme of the Constitution, and referred to and recognised as such by judicial decisions, was expressly declared as an integral part of the Constitution itself, when the Preamble of the Constitution got amended by the Forty Second Amendment in 1975. The imprint of secularism is firmly fastened at the very threshold of our Constitutional edifice. It cannot be suggested that such a secular Constitution was bowing to an image or worshipping a God when it adopted a patriotic song as its National Anthem. Reaction of different sections of people of India: 36. The composition of the Constituent Assembly would reveal that in it was represented eminent men, from different parts of this large sub-continent, from the burning sands of Cape Comerin to the snowy slopes of Srinagar There were men not only of different political hues and views, but also of differing religious convictions, and of different religions including religions which did not recognise the existence of the God as such (such as Budhism); and even persons who did not believe in the existence of God. Two among a formidable phalanx of talent who had played a prominent part in the shaping of the Constitution Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr. Ambedkar - are reputedly persons who did not believe in any particular religious God as such. Two among a formidable phalanx of talent who had played a prominent part in the shaping of the Constitution Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr. Ambedkar - are reputedly persons who did not believe in any particular religious God as such. It is inconceivable that such a Constituent Assembly would have adopted, and in one voice, a National Anthem if it refers to or recognises, let alone worships, a God or Deity. Reaction of other minority religions: 37. It is not as though only Jehovah's Witnesses have deep religious convictions. With equal sincerity, persons of other religious persuasions believe in the God as they conceive of Him according to their religious tenets. To the devout Muslim'Allah' is the one and only God and Mohamed is the prophet. Such is the case with many other religions, including 'minority' religions. And every one of such religions place the halo around that God and place Him in the radiance of sanctity and serenity. Which bird does not preen the feathers by its own beak? All these religious minorities have not so far felt any restriction on their religious freedom, when their children attend the school and solemaly sing the National Anthem. This aspect also weighs with us, among other factors, in concluding that singing of the National Anthem does not interfere with any integral or essential part of the religious faith of the petitioners. Parliament's reiteration about National Anthem: 38. In the background of some disruptive tendencies (noticed as early as in the late fifties and frowned upon by the then Prime Minister of India as is discernible from the decision of the Madras High Court in Ramaswamy v. Jawaharlal, A.I.R. 1958 Madras 558 and which, unfortunately continued unabated even thereafter), and the protests against them, in the Press, on the platform and even on the Floor of the Parliament, the Government, enacted "The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971." It punishes a person who intentionally prevents the singing of the Indian National Anthem or causes disturbance to any assembly engaged in such singing. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for that enactment would indicate that the National Flag and the National Anthem were treated by the Parliament of India as symbols of sovereignty and integrity of the Nation. (See Gazette of India dated 13-8-1970, Part II, S 2, Extra., P. 833). The Statement of Objects and Reasons for that enactment would indicate that the National Flag and the National Anthem were treated by the Parliament of India as symbols of sovereignty and integrity of the Nation. (See Gazette of India dated 13-8-1970, Part II, S 2, Extra., P. 833). The Parliament had deliberated over the National Flag and National Anthem again at the time of the Forty Second Amendment. In express terms Art.51A made it a Fundamental Duty of every citizen to respect the National Flag and the National Anthem. These repeated expressions of the sovereign will of India, would dispel any doubt whatever that the National Anthem is only a patriotic song, glorifying the greatness and glory of the Nation. What darts into the mental plane of anyone chanting the National Anthem is the Nation itself, inspiring in him or her, a feeling about the Nation: "Here comes she, my life, my light" as Tennyson would put it. No element of 'worship' in National Anthem: 39. We are unable to discern any trace of 'worship' in the singing of the National Anthem. The term 'worship' has to be understood, in the present context, not in a general sense of respect or admiration. The meaning assigned by the New Webster's Dictionary of the English Language, "The performance of devotional acts in honour of a deity, as a church service; the act of paying divine honors to the Supreme Being or other divine power", would be appropriate in that context. It would similarly mean "to honour or reverence as a divine being or supernatural power." That concept is illustrated there by the sentence reading: "The Father, the Son and Holy Spirit are uncreated and are to be worshipped together as one God." (See Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged) Chanting the National Anthem does not involve any element of worship whatever, whether it be to any God or any other concept. And when men, women and children join together to sing that National Anthem, they are not joining any rituals or prayers to a God or to other divine concept. Conclusions: 40. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that Jana Gana Mana, the National Anthem of India is not a worshipful hymn, with a sectarian base or a narrow vision; chanting the National Anthem does not involve the worship of any Deity or other concept. Conclusions: 40. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that Jana Gana Mana, the National Anthem of India is not a worshipful hymn, with a sectarian base or a narrow vision; chanting the National Anthem does not involve the worship of any Deity or other concept. Jana Gana Mana is a patriotic song pure and simple, with its noted emotional appeal, stirring the hearts and souls of the millions of this sub-continent. It symbolises values, great and cherishable values, about which Frankfurter J. stated in Minersville School District v. Walter Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586: "A society which is dedicated to the preservation of these ultimate values of civilization may in self-protection utilize the educational process for inculcating those almost unconscious feeling which bind man together in a comprehending loyalty, whatever may be their lesser differences and difficulties." The religious freedom of the petitioners will not in any way be abridged, affected or offended by singing the secular National Anthem. The apprehension of the petitioners about the violation of their religious freedom has no foundation whatever. There is no invasion of Art.25 and 26 of the Constitution, as wrongly assumed or apprehended by the petitioners. The learned judge was perfectly justified in rejecting their contentions and complaints. Other contentions: 41. Our above conclusion is sufficient to sustain the judgment of the learned single judge dismissing the writ petition. In that view of the matter, it is unnecessary to cover other areas over which counsel addressed elaborate arguments. We may, however, refer only to one aspect, which was considerably stressed by the respondents, albeit as a second string to the bow. Limitations of Religious freedom: 42. According to the respondents, the religious freedom guaranteed under Art.25 is not absolute or unregulated. As the opening portion of the Article indicates, the freedom is "subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part." Any violation of the petitioners' religious freedom in the present case, would be neutralised by the restrictive clause, as referred to above. If a religious freedom as pleaded by the petitioners is conceded to them, it would go counter to morality contained in the opening part of the Article itself and will be unavailable when that freedom goes counter to morality it was submitted. This latter submission is a serious one and has considerable weight. Religion vs. Morality: 43. If a religious freedom as pleaded by the petitioners is conceded to them, it would go counter to morality contained in the opening part of the Article itself and will be unavailable when that freedom goes counter to morality it was submitted. This latter submission is a serious one and has considerable weight. Religion vs. Morality: 43. Constitutional history is replete with cases where the plenitude of religious freedom had come in a collision course with morality. When there is such a direct confrontation between a religious practice and the morality of the political community, the religious rituals had to yield. Chap.10 of the book "The American Constitution, Cases and Materials, Fifth Edition edited by William B. Lockhart, Yale Kamisar and Jesse H. Chopper and Chap.11 of the Modern Constitutional Law, Cases and Notes by Ronald D. Rotunda, deal with judicial decisions in the United States discussing the religious freedom in diverse fact situations. Latham, C.J. exhaustively discussed many of these aspects in (1943) 67 C.L.R. 116 supra. The following passage occurring at page 125-26 is particularly relevant in the present context: "At all periods of human history there have been religions which have involved practices which have been regarded by large numbers of people as essentially evil and wicked. Many religions involve the idea of sacrifice, and the practice of sacrifice has assumed the form of human sacrifice or animal sacrifice as appears in the Old Testament, and in many other sacred writings and traditions. So also religions have differed in their treatment of polygamy. Polygamy was not reproved in the Old Testament; it has been part of the Mormon religion; it is still an element in the religion of millions of Mohammedans, Hindus, and other races in Asia. The criminal religions in India are well-known. The Thugs of India regarded it as a religious duty to rob and to kill. The practice of suttee, involving the immolation of the widow upon the funeral pyre of her husband, was for centuries a part of the Hindu religion. These examples are sufficient to show that religious belief and practice cannot be absolutely separated either from politics or from ethics. An inconsistency between religious and political duty has often appeared in history." And later observed: "It has already been shown that beliefs entertained by a religious body as religious beliefs may be inconsistent with the maintenance of civil government. These examples are sufficient to show that religious belief and practice cannot be absolutely separated either from politics or from ethics. An inconsistency between religious and political duty has often appeared in history." And later observed: "It has already been shown that beliefs entertained by a religious body as religious beliefs may be inconsistent with the maintenance of civil government. The complete protection of all religious beliefs might result in the disappearance of organized society " The learned judge further held that the responsibility of deciding the relevant issues of religious freedom vested only with the courts. Similar sentiments were expressed in Samuel v. Davis, 133 U.S. 637. Chief Justice Waite's observation in Raynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 clearly points to the grave situation, if every religious belief is to prevail over the law of the land: "Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief. To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief, superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to be a law into himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances." What is 'morality': 44. This takes us to a consideration of the scope and amplitude of the term'morality' as occurring in Art.25 of the Constitution. Ordinarily a term in a Constitutional document cannot be given a narrow or restricted meaning. Decisions given in ordinary situations may not therefore be of much direct application. They may, however, serve as some helping sign posts. A false statement made knowingly in order to gain some benefits is, whatever be the subject-matter of the statement, and in every sense of the term an immoral act. (See Beneficed Clerk v. Lee, (1897) A. C. 226.) Moral improvement, thought Jenkins, L.J. " is a wider term, and would also extend to the inculcation of a desirable code of secular ethics, eg., the secular (though also Christian) virtues of honesty, fair play, unselfishness and so on." (See Baddeley v. Inland Revenue Commrs., (1953) 2 All E.R. 233.) The question may then be argued: will not a callous refusal to proclaim one's patriotism be opposed to the right conduct and amount to negation of morality? Patriotism is the right conduct: 45. Patriotic feeling has been universally recognised as a laudable virtue. and commendable conduct. Patriotism is the right conduct: 45. Patriotic feeling has been universally recognised as a laudable virtue. and commendable conduct. As for India, it is not a novel idea gifted by the western civilisation. Though shrouded in the mist of time, the lines Table:#6 proclaim the patriotic fervour of the ancients in this land. To them, no doubt, Heaven was ultimate bliss. But Mother and Motherland were more covetable than Heaven itself. Could it be said that a manifestation of patriotism, which in letter and in spirit is a noble ideal of human life, is not in the path of the right conduct and therefore of morality? Morality of Patriotism - Effect of Fundamental Duty' - Under Art.51-A: 46. It was argued that matters are no longer in grey area, when the Parliament has spoken about it, and with emphasis, on more occasions than one. When the Parliament enacted the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 referred to above, and made intentional prevention of the singing of the National Anthem or causing disturbance to any assembly engaged in such singing a punishable offence, the Parliament was rightly condemning a disrespect to the patriotic song as an immoral act. Matters have been made clearer, clear beyond any possible doubt, when by the Forty Second amendment, respect for the National Anthem has been made a Fundamental Duty under Art.51 A. While examining the rights Of the petitioners under Art.25 and 26 of the Constitution, the Court will be duty bound to advert also to the duties- Fundamental Duties - cast on the petitioners. Though a departure from everyone of the Fundamental Duty may not necessarily be an immoral act, a disrespect of the National Anthem may be an immoral act, viewed from the background of the enactment and the Constitutional amendment referred to above. As noted earlier, it is not necessary for us to express a definite view on this aspect. There is. however, much force in these submissions. Mere standing in the assembly is not showing respect to the National Anthem when binding directions require every one to sing: 47. Realising, perhaps, the massive mandate underlying the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 and the Fundamental Duty under Art.51 A, counsel for the appellants made a subtle slant from the earlier and rigid stand. Mere standing in the assembly is not showing respect to the National Anthem when binding directions require every one to sing: 47. Realising, perhaps, the massive mandate underlying the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 and the Fundamental Duty under Art.51 A, counsel for the appellants made a subtle slant from the earlier and rigid stand. It was submitted that the appellants were showing, and were prepared to show respect to the National Anthem by standing in the morning assembly when other students sing. That according to him, would do duty as expressing respect to the National Anthem. He contended that a mere omission of a person in singing the National Anthem does not necessarily yield to an inference of his disrespect to the National Anthem. A dumb student, cannot sing; a disabled one, may not. In either case, no disrespect is involved continued counsel. 48. The arguments do not bear scrutiny. Respect has to be shown in the manner appropriate for the expression of the high regard, honour or esteem that word implies. As to how respect is to be shown as regards the National Anthem, has been clearly indicated by the authorities entrusted with the administration and discipline of the educational institutions where the National Anthem is sung regularly. When the entire institution has thus evolved a specific mode and disciplined manner in which respect has to be shown to the National Anthem, no divagation therefrom can be permitted. It is impermissible that students, singularly or in groups, are permitted to evolve their own methods of showing respect to the National Anthem. As for the appellants, there is no inability as in the case of dumb student. Nor is there any other valid excuse for their omission to sing. The stand of the appellants, looked at plainly and directly, is that they will not sing the National Anthem, though they can sing; they refuse to sing even when, they are, as a matter of discipline, expected to sing along with the entirety of the student population in the educational institution. The mental attitude so projecting out, has necessarily to be held as a positive disrespect to the National Anthem. The mental attitude so projecting out, has necessarily to be held as a positive disrespect to the National Anthem. When what has been evolved as the particular method of paying respect to the National Anthem, is a proper, reasonable and universally accepted method of showing respect to the National Anthem, a deliberate refusal to sing it is nothing else or other than a disrespect to the National Anthem. Other cases cited at the Bar: 49. In the light of the conclusions reached by us in Para.40 it is unnecessary for us to consider the decisions of the American Supreme Court in The West Virginia State Board of Education v. Matter Barnette, 319 US 624-87 L Ed. 1628, of the United States District Court, Arizona in George W. Sheldon v. Paul Fannin, (Civil No. 749, Prescott Division, dated August 29,1963), and of the Supreme Court of Colorado in Zavilla v. Masse, 112 Colo. 183,147 P. 2d 823 referred to at the Bar. There are obvious differences in the factual, legal and constitutional situations. In that view of the matter, we have also refrained from considering the question whether the view taken by the Supreme Court of America in 319 US 624 supra was not an over-liberal view, and one which as Frankfurter J stated in his strong dissent in that very decision, is opposed to the views of the thirteen judges who had occasion to pour out their minds on the question on earlier occasion. It may be noted in passing that in Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Conscience, 452 U.S. 640, the American Supreme Court did not feel that there were over intensive restrictions on the religious freedom of the petitioners who approached that Court with such a complaint. 50. The learned Advocate General, while making his submissions on the scope of Art.25, made reference to two decisions of this Court, Rajendran Nair v. Principal, University College, 1978 K.L.T. 204 and Mohammed Fasi v. Supdt. of Police, Alleppey, 1985 K.L.T. 185. These two decisions, with respect, do not illumine that aspect of the matter arising for decision in the case. In the former, it was found as a fact that there was no violence done to the religious tenet relied on by the petitioners. In the latter, the aspect is not discussed in detail. Decision in the appeal: 51. These two decisions, with respect, do not illumine that aspect of the matter arising for decision in the case. In the former, it was found as a fact that there was no violence done to the religious tenet relied on by the petitioners. In the latter, the aspect is not discussed in detail. Decision in the appeal: 51. In the light of the above discussion we hold: The National Anthem of India,'Jana Gana Mana', is only a patriotic song; chanting the National Anthem is only a secular act, and it does not involve a violation of religious freedom of a citizen guaranteed under Art.25 and 26 of the Constitution of India; that the Headmistress of the school and the educational authorities are justified in insisting upon the petitioners participating in the singing of the National Anthem when the students of the school assemble for the morning 'assembly; that mere standing at the ceremony would not amount to showing respect to the National Anthem in the manner provided by the educational authorities; that the petitioners do not have any justifiable complaint to be redressed in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution; that the learned judge was correct in dismissing the original petition; and that the writ appeal is devoid of merit. We accordingly dismiss the writ appeal, but without any order as to costs. Dismissed. As in our opinion no substantial question of law of general importance to be decided by the Supreme Court does arise for consideration in this case we decline to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court as prayed for by the counsel for the appellants. We direct the office to furnish Photostat copies of the judgment on usual terms to the counsel appearing on both sides. Leave refused.