Let Executive Deal With It First: Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking Mandatory Registration Of All Religious And Secular Educational Institutions

The Supreme Court, today, refused to entertain a petition seeking directions for the Centre and States to register all institutions imparting secular or religious instruction to children under 14.

A petition under Article 32 was filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking directions to the Centre and States to take appropriate steps to register all Institutions imparting Secular Education and/or Religious Instruction to Children upto the age of 14 years. Petitioner also seeks a declaration that Article 30 is a specific reiteration of Article 19(1)(g) and Institutions imparting Religious Instruction fall under Article 26(a).

The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice SC Sharma ordered, "Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the authorities with a suitable representation."

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for the Petitioner. 

"I have one response to that, which is that the high courts of both Allahabad and Kerala as recently as Friday have weighed in in opposite directions. Allahabad has in fact said that such an institution can continue to run without recognition, and Kerala has said it cannot and it's closed it down. It segues into your Lordship's judgement in that Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust where your Lordship has referred those questions on minority institutions offering education...", Sankaranarayanan submitted.

Justice Datta said, "Let the executive first deal with it, thereafter, we'll consider it...We have seen all the states and parties, that is why it struck me, what is this Registration part? At least in Bengal, I don't find any registration thing. It's the recognition part because of course, you know, in Bengal we have the Madrasa education board, and each and every Madrasa has to be registered with the Madrasa board, otherwise they cannot send students for the class and examination."

Senior Counsel added, "I'll just explain what the concern is. Ever since 21A came in and said that ages 6 to 14 have to have compulsory and free education. The problem is children who are not getting that 6 to 14 compulsory education and being sent into a parallel methodology of religious instruction, it doesn't have to be Madrasas, any religious instruction, you cannot take children away from the basic education."

"We have expressed our concern about how it has to be. It is before the Court of Justice of India whether it is put before a larger bench or not", the Bench remarked.

"I have expressed, so may I make this submission? Will your Lordship allow me to withdraw with liberty to make that representation which may be considered, will your Lordship record that?", Sankaranarayanan concluded.

The Petitioner also sought a declaration that ‘Education Institution of their choice’ in Article 30(a) mean Secular/Professional Education of their choice, not the Religious Education of their Choice.

It was stated, "The institutions which impart Religious Instruction directly fall under Article 26, but presently, they are being covered under Article 30, which is not permissible under the Constitution. If a Non-Minority Institution imparting Religious Instruction can NOT be covered under Article 19, then Minority Institutions imparting Religious Instruction also cannot be covered under Article 30, as Article 30 is a reiteration of Article 19. Semi-Religious Minority Educational Institutions are being covered under Article 30(1), which is a wrong interpretation."

Thousands of unregistered institutions are radicalising gullible young children under the garb of imparting Religious Instruction as they are not supervised by the State, which has serious implications not only for Internal Security but also Fraternity, Unity and National Integration, as one can easily brainwash young children in the name of religion, the Petitioner alleged.

"Further, neither Minority has been defined till date, nor there is any Guideline to identify Minority, due to which State action has become manifestly arbitrary. Petitioner submits that the unit of minority can be Hundred, Thousand or Lac but can’t be Crore. But, communities with huge Populations still claim the benefits of Article 30", it said.

The Plea, filed by AOR Ashwini Kumar Dubey, submitted that the State is obligated to register all Institutions, whether Religious or non-Religious, which impart Education or Religious Instruction, to Children up to the age of 14 years, in accordance with Article 21-A, Article 39 (f), Article 45 and Article 51-A(k). It is not a mere discretionary Policy Decision but a mandatory step that the State is obligated to undertake, it said.

 "Firstly, Children are the backbone of a Nation’s growth and are also gullible and naïve due to their tender age. If any Institution is directly dealing with them, then it has to be state-monitored and recognised. The State has heightened responsibility while dealing with Children...Secondly, this is an issue of National Security as young kids form the future of the Nation. If children are brainwashed/manipulated, the future can be destructive. It is a known fact that young kids are the most susceptible to Religious Brainwashing and Manipulation", the petition stated.

It was also submitted that Article 21-A not only mandates the State to provide free and compulsory Education, but also guarantees equal quality education, and no Institution can claim absolute freedom from monitoring of the State, as they deal with youn,g gullible children. It is the State’s onus to maintain the quality of Education for all children up to the age of 14 years, and the same can’t be done without registration/supervision.

"Sixthly, the Safety/Security of Children is paramount. It is the State’s onus to prevent trafficking of Children by unregistered School/ Institution(s) by preventing it at the threshold. Further, it is also the State’s onus to make sure that Children are not being employed to work i.e. Child Labour by the Institutions. By registering Institutions, the State deters such practices through constant supervision and monitoring. This would be in consonance with Articles 23-24. It is necessary to mention that the Children trafficked from 05 States were found in Madarasas and the Kerala High Court had directed for CBI Investigation. The Court in Rajendra Prasad v. UOI, WP(C) 14259 of 2014, encountered a situation where Children “were brought to the orphanages in Kerala under the guise of giving them free education", the Petition said.

The Petitioner also submitted that Imparting Religious Instruction amounts to ‘Propagating’ Religion and shall be covered under Article 25. Any Institution which imparts such Religious Instruction falls squarely under the ‘Institutions for Religious and Charitable Purposes’ under Article 26. It said that the magnitude of Religious Instruction being imparted or if Secular Education was being imparted, would be no ground to not categorise such an institution under Article 26.

It was prayed, "direct the Centre and States to take appropriate steps to Register all the Schools / Institutions, imparting Education and/or Religious Instruction to Children upto the age of 14 years in spirit of Article 21A, Article 39 (f), Article 45 and Article 51-A(k)...direct and declare that Article 30 is Specific Reiteration of the Article 19(1)(g) and doesn’t confer any Additional Rights/Benefits/Privileges than the Rights guaranteed to the citizens under Article 19(1)(g)".

It also sought directions that any ‘Institution’, which imparts ‘Religious Instructions’ to promote or propagate any ‘Religion’ is covered under Article 26(a), and not under the Article 19(1)(g) or Article 30(1) and that ‘Educational Institutions of their choice’ in Article 30(a) mean ‘Secular/Professional Educational Institutions of their choice’, not ‘Religious Educational Institutions of their choice’.

Accordingly, the matter was dismissed as withdrawn.

Cause Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors. [Diary No. 6692 of 2026]