SC refuses to hear PIL on regulating religious, secular education

The Supreme Court declined to hear a PIL seeking to regulate all institutions imparting secular or religious education to children under 14. The petitioner, after being refused by the bench, withdrew the plea to pursue the remedy in an appropriate forum.

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a PIL seeking directions to the Centre and all State governments to register, recognise, supervise and monitor every institution imparting secular education and/or religious instruction to children up to the age of 14 years.

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul Pancholi refused to entertain the plea, after which Upadhyay withdrew the petition. During the hearing, Upadhyay argued that imparting religious education is indirectly the promotion of religion. The bench allowed Upadhyay to withdraw the plea and pursue his remedy in an appropriate forum.

PIL's Constitutional Arguments

The petition also sought a declaration that Article 30 of the Constitution protects only minority institutions imparting secular or professional education and does not extend to institutions providing religious instruction.

The petition contended that the State has a constitutional obligation under Article 21A, read with Articles 14, 15, 16, 39(f), 45 and 51A(k), to ensure that every institution educating children below the age of 14 years operates under a regulatory framework through registration, recognition and regular supervision.

According to the plea, the petitioner visited several border districts of Uttar Pradesh earlier this year and allegedly found numerous unregistered and unrecognised institutions. The petition claimed that similar institutions have proliferated in border districts across the country and argues that the absence of regulatory oversight affects children's right to quality education and raises concerns regarding their welfare and safety.

The PIL argued that institutions imparting religious instruction should constitutionally fall within the ambit of Article 26, which deals with institutions established for religious and charitable purposes, rather than Article 30.

It sought a declaration that Article 30 is merely a specific reiteration of the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) to establish educational institutions and does not confer any additional rights or privileges beyond those available to other citizens.

The petitioner further contended that the expression "educational institutions of their choice" occurring in Article 30 should be interpreted to mean secular or professional educational institutions and not institutions imparting religious instruction.

The plea asserts that any institution promoting religion by imparting religious instruction ought to be governed by Article 26 of the Constitution.

Plea Seeks Definition of 'Minority'

The petition also questioned the absence of a statutory definition of "minority" and sought judicial directions to the Union government to define the term and lay down objective parameters for identifying minority communities. In the alternative, it requests the Court to evolve appropriate guidelines for such identification.

It sought directions to the Centre and States to regulate all institutions imparting education or religious instruction to children below 14 years of age.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)