SC Seeks Regulation of All Institutions for Children Under 14

A Public Interest Litigation has been filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in the Supreme Court seeking uniform regulation of all educational and religious institutions for children under 14. The plea argues that Article 30 does not grant special rights to minorities beyond Article 19(1)(g) and should not cover religious institutions. It highlights the proliferation of unregistered institutions along the Uttar Pradesh border, affecting child safety and education quality. The petition also seeks a clear definition of "minority" and directions for objective criteria for identification.

Key Points: PIL in SC: Regulate All Religious, Educational Institutions for Kids

  • PIL seeks mandatory registration of all institutions for children under 14
  • Article 30 should not cover religious educational institutions, only secular ones
  • Petitioners argue unregulated institutions harm child safety and quality education
  • SC asked to define "minority" and set objective criteria for identification
3 min read

PIL in SC seeks uniform regulation of educational and religious institutions for children, clarity on Article 30

PIL by Ashwini Upadhyay in SC seeks uniform regulation of institutions for children under 14, clarity on Article 30, and mandatory registration nationwide.

"Article 30 does not grant any special or additional rights to minorities beyond what is already guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g). - Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay"

New Delhi, May 5

A Public Interest Litigation has been filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay before the Supreme Court of India, seeking comprehensive directions to the Union and State governments to regulate all institutions imparting education or religious instruction to children below the age of 14 years.

The plea, moved under Article 32 of the Constitution, opens with a set of key prayers urging the Court to ensure mandatory registration, recognition, supervision, and monitoring of such institutions nationwide.

The petitioner has also sought a declaration that Article 30 does not grant any special or additional rights to minorities beyond what is already guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g).

According to the plea, Article 30 is only a reiteration of the general right to establish educational institutions and must be interpreted within the same constitutional limitations.

Further, the petition asks the Court to clarify that institutions imparting religious instruction for the purpose of promoting religion fall strictly within the scope of Article 26, which governs religious affairs, and not under Articles 19 or 30.

It also seeks a ruling that the phrase "educational institutions of their choice" under Article 30 should be confined to secular or professional institutions, excluding religious educational establishments.

The plea states that the issue came to light after the petitioner visited several districts along the Uttar Pradesh border, where numerous unregistered and unrecognised institutions were allegedly found operating.

It claims that such institutions are proliferating across the border areas of the country without any effective oversight or regulatory mechanism.

Highlighting concerns over children's welfare, the petition contends that the absence of regulation in these institutions adversely affects the right to quality education guaranteed under Article 21A.

It points to the lack of standardised curricula, qualified teachers, and institutional accountability, arguing that these deficiencies undermine both educational standards and child safety.

A significant aspect of the plea revolves around constitutional interpretation. The petitioner argues that Articles 25 and 26 exclusively govern matters of religion, and therefore, any institution imparting religious instruction, whether wholly or partially, must be regulated under Article 26.

Extending the protection of Article 30 to such institutions, the plea submits, leads to a flawed interpretation and creates an imbalance between minority and non-minority institutions.

The petition also draws attention to the absence of a clear legal definition of "minority" in India and seeks directions for the Centre to lay down objective criteria for its identification.

It asserts that the lack of defined parameters has resulted in arbitrary classification, allowing even large communities to claim minority status and avail constitutional benefits.

Emphasising that children are particularly vulnerable, the plea stresses that the State has a constitutional duty to ensure a safe and regulated educational environment.

It argues that monitoring all institutions dealing with children is not optional but a mandatory obligation flowing from constitutional provisions relating to education, welfare, and child protection.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
I appreciate the intent, but I hope this doesn't become another tool to target minority communities. Many minority schools do provide excellent secular education alongside religious instruction. The PIL asks for "secular or professional" institutions only under Article 30 - that seems too restrictive. Why can't a minority community run a school that teaches their culture and language along with regular subjects? We need balance, not blanket bans.
R
Rajesh Q
As someone who studied in a Christian missionary school, I can say they provide world-class education. But I've also seen many so-called "religious institutions" that are nothing but fronts for extremism. The petitioner is right - we need uniform regulation. No child should be denied proper science, math, and English just because their parents send them to a religious school. Children's future is more important than any community's special rights.
N
Nisha Z
The point about defining "minority" is crucial! In some states, Hindus are a minority but still can't claim benefits. In others, Muslims or Christians get minority status despite being large populations. The Centre must set clear criteria. Otherwise, this PIL might just create more confusion. Also, religious instruction for kids under 14 should be limited - let them first complete basic education before exposing them to any one faith.
A
Arjun K
I'm a teacher in a government school near the Bihar border. These unregulated institutions are a menace. Parents send kids there because it's free or cheap, but they learn nothing. No science labs, no playgrounds, no child protection policies. The state must regulate all institutions, regardless of religion. Article 30 is not a license to run substandard schools. Every child deserves the same quality of education, plain and simple. 🇮🇳

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50