Supreme Court Gives Centre 4 Weeks On Plea Seeking Regulation Of Madrasas, Religious Schools For Children Below 14

The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the direction while hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The plea filed through AoR Ashwani Kumar Dubey sought comprehensive directions for registration, recognition, supervision and monitoring of all institutions imparting education or religious instruction to children up to the age of 14 years, in line with Articles 21A, 39(f), 45 and 51A(k) of the Constitution.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court directed the Union Education Ministry to examine and decide the petitioner’s representation within four weeks.

The petition raised concerns over the functioning of allegedly unregistered and unrecognised institutions across several border districts, particularly in areas adjoining Uttar Pradesh. According to the plea, the petitioner visited multiple districts and found institutions operating without effective regulatory oversight, standardised curriculum, trained teachers or institutional accountability.

The petition argued that such institutions could adversely affect children’s right to quality education guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution and also raise concerns relating to child welfare and national security. “Children are the backbone of nation’s growth and are also gullible and naive due to their tender age. Hence, State has heightened responsibility towards them,” the plea stated.

The PIL also sought a declaration that Article 30 of the Constitution does not confer any special or additional rights upon minorities beyond the protections already guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g), which deals with the right to practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business.

The petitioner argued that Article 30 is merely a reiteration of the broader constitutional right to establish educational institutions and must be interpreted within similar constitutional limitations.

The plea further contended that institutions imparting religious instruction for the purpose of promoting religion should fall exclusively within the scope of Article 26, which governs religious affairs, and not under Articles 19 or 30.

It also urged the Court to clarify that the phrase “educational institutions of their choice” under Article 30 should be restricted to secular and professional educational institutions and should not extend to religious educational establishments.

Another key issue raised in the petition concerns the absence of a statutory definition of “minority” in India. The plea sought directions to the Union government to frame objective criteria for identifying minority communities, arguing that the present lack of clarity permits arbitrary classifications. The petition maintained that extending Article 30 protections to religious institutions without adequate regulation creates an imbalance between minority and non-minority educational institutions.

Highlighting the State’s constitutional obligations towards children, the plea asserted that monitoring institutions dealing with minors is not optional but a mandatory constitutional duty flowing from provisions relating to education, welfare and child protection.