Supreme Court Issues Notice To Education Secretary In Contempt Plea Over Regulation Of Religious Education Institutions

The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu issued notice to the Education Secretary. The Court dispensed with his personal appearance and directed that the matter be listed after four weeks.

The contempt petition relates to an earlier proceeding in which Upadhyay had sought regulation of institutions providing secular or religious education to children below the age of 14.

On May 11, the Supreme Court had disposed of Upadhyay’s plea and directed the Centre to consider his representation and take an appropriate decision within two months. The Court had also directed the government to communicate its decision to Upadhyay without delay.

According to the contempt petition, Upadhyay forwarded his representation along with the Court’s order to the concerned authorities but did not receive any response. He subsequently approached the Supreme Court alleging that the direction had not been complied with.

Plea seeking registration and monitoring of institutions

Upadhyay’s original representation sought the registration, recognition and monitoring of institutions imparting religious education to children below 14 years of age.

He alleged that several unregistered institutions were operating without adequate State supervision and claimed that children could be subjected to manipulation or indoctrination under the guise of religious instruction.

The plea stated that the issue had implications for child safety, internal security, fraternity, unity and national integration. It further alleged that unrecognised institutions lacked proper criteria for the appointment of teachers, syllabus audits and implementation of welfare schemes.

Upadhyay contended that the right to quality education under Article 21A of the Constitution could not be effectively ensured in institutions that were neither registered nor recognised.

He also sought directions requiring all educational institutions to be registered, recognised and monitored. The plea stated that such measures were necessary to prevent child trafficking and ensure the safety and security of children.

Upadhyay further contended that semi-religious minority and non-minority educational institutions could not claim protection under Article 30 of the Constitution, which deals with the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

He argued that the expression “educational institutions of their choice” under Article 30(a) should refer to secular or professional educational institutions and not institutions imparting religious instruction.

According to his plea, institutions imparting religious instruction to promote a religion would instead fall within the scope of Article 26(a).