Supreme Court Asks Centre to Decide on Regulating Religious Schools for Kids Under 14

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma disposed of the writ petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay after taking note of the submission that the petitioner had already made a representation before the Union Ministry of Education on February 10 this year.

During the hearing, the apex court declined to entertain the plea at this stage and asked the petitioner to await the outcome of the pending representation.

It noted that in an earlier writ petition filed by the same petitioner, the apex court had refused to interfere and had instead granted liberty to approach the competent authority.

Referring to the earlier proceedings, the Justice Datta-led Bench observed that only around three months had passed since the representation was submitted before the Centre.

"The first time you came without a representation, we said that once you are seeking a mandamus in terms of the 1974 judgment, you are required to first go to the authority for your grievance. Not much time has lapsed. On February 10, you submitted your representation," the top court observed.

When the petitioner requested that the present writ petition be treated as a representation, the Justice Datta-led Bench declined the plea, observing that since a representation had already been filed, the competent authority should first take a decision on it.

The plea sought directions to the Centre and state governments to register, recognise, supervise and monitor all institutions imparting secular education and/or religious instruction to children up to the age of 14 years.

The petition contended that thousands of unregulated and unrecognised institutions across the country were functioning without adequate supervision and claimed that such institutions could adversely affect children's right to quality education under Article 21A of the Constitution.

It further sought a declaration that institutions imparting religious instruction would fall under Article 26 of the Constitution and not under Articles 19(1)(g) or 30(1).

The plea also sought directions declaring that the expression "educational institutions of their choice" under Article 30 referred only to secular or professional educational institutions and not religious educational institutions.

In addition, it sought framing of guidelines and parameters for identifying minorities under Article 30 of the Constitution.

In the petition, the petitioner claimed that during visits to border districts of Uttar Pradesh earlier this year, he found several allegedly unregistered and unrecognised institutions imparting religious instruction to children.

The plea argued that all institutions dealing with children below 14 years, whether secular or religious, ought to be brought under a regulatory framework in view of Articles 21A, 39(f), 45 and 51A(k) of the Constitution.

- IANS