Subject: GS 2: Polity & Governance
Context: Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the State Government’s order on reciting the Gayatri Mantra and other Sanskrit prayers in government school assemblies, ruling that Article 28(1) bars religious instruction, not non-denominational moral instruction.
UPSC Online Coaching
Background of the Case
- Government Order: The Chhattisgarh School Education Department directed government schools to include the Gayatri Mantra and certain Sanskrit prayers in morning assemblies.
Constitutional Provisions Involved:
- Article 14: Guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws.
- Article 21: Protects the right to life, personal liberty, dignity and individual autonomy.
- Article 25: Guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health and other Fundamental Rights.
- Article 28: Regulates religious instruction in educational institutions.
- Article 28(1): Prohibits religious instruction in institutions wholly maintained by State funds.
- Article 28(2): Permits religious instruction in institutions administered by the State but established under an endowment or trust requiring such instruction.
- Article 28(3): No student in a State-recognised or State-aided institution can be compelled to participate in religious instruction or worship without consent.
- Article 29: Protects the cultural and educational rights of citizens.
- Article 30: Grants religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions.
|
- Challenge Before the High Court: The petitioners argued that making Hindu prayers part of assemblies in State-funded schools amounted to religious instruction prohibited by the Constitution.
Observations of the Chhattisgarh High Court
- Nature of the Government Order: The order contained no mandatory or coercive direction compelling students to act against their beliefs.
- Premature Challenge: The petition was premature, as no actual violation of Fundamental Rights or direct injury had been demonstrated.
- Interpretation of Article 28(1): Article 28(1) prohibits only religious instruction, i.e., teaching the customs, rituals, practices and modes of worship of a religion in State-funded institutions.
- Moral Instruction Permissible: Non-denominational moral instruction is constitutionally permissible as it promotes citizenship, social cohesion and public order.
- Freedom of Religion: Since students were not compelled to act against their beliefs, the order did not violate freedom of conscience and religion.
Religious Instruction vs Moral Instruction
- Religious Instruction: Refers to teaching the beliefs, doctrines, scriptures, rituals, modes of worship and practices of a particular religion with the objective of promoting or propagating that religion.
- It is prohibited in educational institutions wholly maintained out of State funds under Article 28(1).
- Moral Instruction: Refers to imparting ethical values, discipline, compassion, honesty, citizenship, social responsibility and constitutional values that are universal and not linked to any particular religion.
- Such instruction aims at character-building and responsible citizenship rather than religious propagation.
- Constitutional Position: The Constitution distinguishes religious instruction from value-based education. While Article 28(1) prohibits religious instruction in State-funded institutions, it does not bar non-denominational moral education that promotes constitutional morality, civic responsibility and ethical conduct.
National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS):
- Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS): The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 promotes the integration of Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) into the curriculum to expose students to India’s scientific, mathematical, philosophical, linguistic, artistic and cultural traditions, while encouraging an evidence-based and multidisciplinary approach to learning.
- Objective: The policy seeks to provide holistic education by combining modern knowledge with India’s traditional wisdom, strengthen constitutional values, promote ethical reasoning, critical thinking and cultural awareness, and preserve India’s rich heritage without promoting religious indoctrination or sectarian teachings.
|
Click to Know UPSC Offline Courses
Landmark Supreme Court Precedents
- D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab (1971): The Supreme Court clarified that Article 28(1) prohibits religious instruction in educational institutions wholly maintained by the State, while permitting the academic study of religions in a secular context.
- Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986): The Supreme Court held that Freedom of Conscience under Article 25 protects individuals from being compelled to participate in religious or ideological expressions, thereby affirming that students cannot be forced to recite prayers against their beliefs.
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): The Court declared Secularism to be part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution and held that the State must maintain religious neutrality and refrain from favouring any particular faith.
- A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1996): The Supreme Court distinguished essential religious practices from activities having cultural or secular significance, recognising that not every practice associated with religion is exclusively religious in character.
- Aruna Roy v. Union of India (2002) (NCERT Case): The Court ruled that value-based education is constitutionally valid, provided it does not amount to religious instruction or the propagation of any particular religion, thereby distinguishing moral education from sectarian teaching.
10 Jul 2026
