Freedom of conscience protects respectful silence during the National Anthem where sincere religious objection to singing exists.

Respectful silence while standing during the National Anthem, coupled with sincere religious refusal to sing, was protected by Articles 19(1)(a) and 25(1). No law required every person to sing the anthem, and such silence did not amount to disrespect or disturbance. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 was not attracted because it targets intentional prevention of singing or disturbance of an assembly engaged in singing. The Kerala Education Rules did not authorise compulsory singing against genuine conscientious objection, and executive circulars could not curtail fundamental rights. Compelling the children to sing would therefore violate freedom of speech and conscience, and the expulsion was unconstitutional.

---

---

Issues: Whether expulsion of schoolchildren for respectfully standing silent during the National Anthem, while declining to sing it on sincere religious grounds, violated their constitutional rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25(1) of the Constitution.

Analysis: The right implicated was freedom of speech and expression as well as freedom of conscience and religion. No law required every person to sing the National Anthem, and respectful silence while standing did not amount to disrespect or disturbance of the anthem. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 punishes intentional prevention of singing or disturbance of an assembly engaged in singing, which was not attracted on these facts. The Kerala Education Rules did not contain any provision authorising compulsory singing in the face of genuine conscientious objection, and the departmental circulars relied upon by the authorities were mere executive instructions without statutory force. Fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) cannot be curtailed by such instructions, and Article 25(1) protects sincere religious conscience unless restricted by a valid law and the other constitutional limitations. The children's conduct showed no indiscipline, disrespect, or breach of public order, and compulsion to sing would amount to forcing a religiously forbidden act.

Conclusion: The expulsion was unconstitutional and violated the appellants' rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25(1).

---