E. Because in Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala (1986) 3 SCC 615, - TopicsExpress



          

E. Because in Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala (1986) 3 SCC 615, the question raised in the aforesaid case, as to whether three children who were faithful to “Jehovah’s witnesses” may refuse to sing our national anthem or salute the national flag of our country despite being the student in the school, where during morning assembly, the national anthem is sung by other children. The circular issued by the Director of Public Instruction, Kerala provided obligation of school children to sing the National Anthem. Thus these children were expelled. The Hon’ble Supreme court while setting aside the aforesaid order of expulsion of the children from the school was pleased to examine, as to whether the children faithful to “Jehovah’s witnesses”, a worldwide sect of Christianity may be compelled against tenets of their religious faith duly recognized and well established all over the world which was upheld by the highest court in United States of America, Australia and Canada and find recognition in Encyclopedia Britannica. It was held that the appellants truly and conscientiously believed that their religion does not permit them to join any rituals except it them in their prayers to Jehovah, their God. Though their religious beliefs may appear strange, the sincerity of their beliefs is beyond question. They do not hold their beliefs idly and their conduct is not the outcome of any perversity. The appellants have not asserted the beliefs for the first time or out of any unpatriotic sentiments. Their objection to sing is not just against the National Anthem of India. They have refused to sing other National Anthems elsewhere. They are law abiding and well-behaved children, who do stand respectfully and would continue to do so, when National Anthem is sung. Their refusal, while so standing to join in the singing of the National Anthem is neither disrespectful of it, nor inconsistent with the Fundamental Duty under Article 51 A (a). Hence no action should have been taken against them. F. Because the concept of sovereignty was present from the ancient time but the sovereignty was conferred upon an individual who is suppress the wicked and is recognized as great resources in itself like the god of fire, air, sun, moon and religion. The religion in the ancient time was considered as spiritualism and it was not dependent upon any ritual ceremony, but it was considered s the knowledge in the darkness of ignorance and injustice. The sovereignty was supposed to promote the cause of the religion, wealth and enjoyment of life and those, who were voluptuous, malicious, mean, and low-minded, were ruined by the retributive justice. G. Because the apex court held in RamSharan Autyanuprasi’s case 1989 (Supp.) (1) SCC 251/AIR 1989 S.C 549 , that men’s life is inclusive of his tradition , culture and heritage and protection of that heritage in its full measure would certainly come within the encompass of an expanded concept of Article 21 of the Constitution H. Because the mankind must be satisfied with the reasonableness within reach and the decision-making process may belong to the knowledge of the law. Thus the reasonableness and the rationality, legality, as well as philosophically, provide colour to the meaning of fundamental right .The concept of equality is not doctrinaire approach. It is a binding threat, which runs through the entire constitutional text thus the affirmative action may be constitutionally valid and the same cannot ignore the constitutional morality, which embraces in-itself the doctrine of inequality. It would be constitutionally immoral to perpetuate inequality among majority .The constitution is required to kept young energetic and alive. The attempt be endure to expand the ambit of fundamental right. It is said that the dignity of the ocean lies not in its fury capable of causing destruction, but in its vast extent and depth with enormous tolerance. Thus the wider the power, the higher the need of caution and care while exercising the power. I. Because the Student/children, the future citizens under taking the education of Indian History on the misconception/ pattern of Anglo Saxon teaching meant for division of Indian society on the policy of “Divide and Rule”. There is a important question posed as to whether we have actually gain our independence or we have to under take another journey full of animosity, aggressism on account of terrorism and fanatic ideology a prevalent throughout the World of a particular religion. J. Because this writ petition is moved in the Public Interest, for a National Cause, to establish the truth there is no private interest or any other oblique motive, or any other personal gain. The petitioner institution, known as Institute for Re-writing Indian History, Thane, having registration no.F-1128 (T) is a public trust. The founder president of the trust is Shri P.N. Oak S/o Late Shri Nagesh Krishna Oak, R/o- Plot no. 10, Goodwill Society, Aundh, Pune.411007, who has written number of books namely 1. World Vedic Heritage, 2. The Tajmahal is a Temple Place, 3.Some Blunders of Indian Historical Research, 4. Flowers Howlers, 5. Learning Vedic Astrology, 6. Some Missing Chapters of World History, 7. Agra red Fort is a Hindu Building, 8.Great Britain was Hindu Land, 9. The Taj Mahal is Tejomahalaya a Shiva Temple, 10.Who Says Akbar was Great, 11. Vedic Guide to Health, Beauty, Longevity and Rejuvenation, 12. Islamic Havoc in Indian History.
Posted on: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 20:37:07 +0000

Trending Topics



Recently Viewed Topics




© 2015