Supreme Court Moots Twice Weekly Moral Science, Citizenship Classes In All Schools Nationwide

The Court made the suggestion while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) raising serious concerns over the rising incidents of crimes against women, especially sexual offences.

The Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a PIL filed by Senior Advocate Aabad Harshad Ponda, who appeared virtually, calling for systemic reforms in education as a preventive mechanism to curb crimes, particularly those targeting women.

The PIL had been admitted and notice was issued by the Court on September 13, 2024.

During hearing today, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Archana Pathak Dave, appearing for the Union of India, informed the Bench that a counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the Ministry of Education.

Reading from the affidavit, ASG Dave submitted that aspects relating to value-based education were already included in the curriculum under the National Education Policy (NEP), 2020.

However, Justice Nagarathna emphasized the need for practical implementation rather than policy assurances. “No doubt you have the object. The question is of implementation,” she remarked.

Recalling her own school days, Justice Nagarathna added, “We never studied EVS, only on June 5 we used to observe Environmental Day.”

In contrast, ASG Dave informed the court that Environmental Studies (EVS) is now part of the regular curriculum.

Pressing further on moral education, Justice Nagarathna observed, “Why can’t there be two classes in a week for this subject in all government and private aided and unaided schools in the country? It will help the children.” She further remarked that children could potentially influence their families with the values they learn in school, noting, “The children can even educate their parents about it, if they are interested in school.”

Senior Advocate Ponda welcomed the observation, responding, “That is the point, My Lord!”

AOR Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh for the petitioner also raised concerns about children who are not enrolled in school, urging that they not be forgotten in the process.

ASG Dave assured the Court that she would place the relevant material on record and agreed in principle with the suggestion of weekly moral and value-based education classes. She added that while the central government oversees the curriculum in central schools, state governments manage their respective school boards.

Justice Sharma noted that the NEP already envisages such curriculum from Classes 1 to 12 and that the NCERT had been directed earlier to incorporate such subjects. “For any school prescribing NCERT textbooks, it is there,” he said.

In light of the need for uniform implementation across the country, the Court stated, “We can issue a direction,” and instructed ASG Dave to serve the counter affidavit to all state standing counsels through online means.

The Bench also highlighted two critical areas on which it would issue directions:

1. Education of children in schools and colleges on good citizenship, moral education, and value-based learning

2. Effective implementation of Section 43 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act

Accepting the submission made by the petitioner's counsel, the Court permitted the addition of all State Governments and Union Territories as parties to the writ petition. The Court ordered that they be represented through their respective Chief Secretaries.

In its order, the Bench recorded, “The ASG draws our attention to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 2, with particular reference to the NEP of the central government. While considering the submission, we find that for a more effective adjudication of this writ petition, it is necessary that the state governments represented through their respective Chief Secretaries and UTs be arrayed as respondents."

The petitioner’s counsel has been directed to file an amended memo of parties by May 9, 2025, and the matter will now be listed for further hearing on May 16, 2025, at 2:00 PM, with the Bench expressing hope to dispose of the matter in the next hearing.

The PIL emphasized that punitive action after the crime is insufficient and that preventive steps through education and awareness are the need of the hour.

The petitioner highlighted the existing disconnect between the legislature's intent and the public's awareness of the law. “The challenge is not merely punishing offenders, but ensuring that such crimes are not committed in the first place,” the petition stated, arguing that laws must be made accessible and understandable to the public, especially the youth.

Referring to the legislative developments following the 2012 Nirbhaya case, the PIL noted that despite harsher punishments introduced since then, the frequency of rape cases has not declined. “Despite the rape laws being made more stringent post-Nirbhaya, this crime only seems to be on the rise,” the petition stated, warning against a “knee-jerk reaction” of further increasing punishments.

It further raised constitutional concerns over recent legislative moves in states like Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, and West Bengal that seek to introduce mandatory death penalties for rape-cum-murder cases. The petition referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983) which held that mandatory death penalties violate fundamental rights and cannot be sustained under the Constitution.

Additionally, the petitioner cautioned against the misuse of stringent provisions, citing risks of false accusations and denial of due process, including anticipatory bail. The PIL argued that justice must be tempered with fairness and that preventive education is more effective than reactionary harshness.

Seeking broader societal reform, the petition called for the inclusion of moral education and gender sensitivity in school curriculums. It advocated for gender equality training to begin early, particularly among boys, to change attitudes that normalize or tolerate violence against women.