Chhattisgarh High Court’s Landmark Decision on School Prayers
In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has declared that students in government schools cannot be compelled to recite Hindu prayers. This decision came during the hearing of a petition contesting a June 12 directive from the State government, which mandated the recital of Hindu prayers like the Saraswati Vandana, Gayatri Mantra, and Guru Mantra in educational institutions.
State’s Circular Challenged
The petition, titled Abdul Salam Rizvi & Ors. v State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., was filed by prominent figures including former Chhattisgarh Waqf Board chairman Abdul Salam Rizvi, former Minority Department chairman Mahendra Chhabda, and social activist Shafique Ahmed. They questioned the constitutional validity of the directive issued by the School Education Department, which required the recital of religious prayers and the reading of biographies of notable personalities during school assemblies.
Constitutional Concerns Raised
The petitioners argued that the circular violated fundamental rights and compromised the secular nature of the Indian Constitution. They asserted that the mandated prayers amounted to religious instruction, which is unconstitutional in government schools. The plea highlighted that there was no provision for exemptions or mechanisms to protect students who chose not to participate in such religious activities, thereby infringing on their freedom of conscience.
High Court’s Observations
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, presiding over the case, noted the State government’s submission that the circular had not yet been implemented. Consequently, the court decided to close the petition while allowing the petitioners to return if any evidence of compulsion arose. The court emphasized its readiness to take appropriate action should any such instances be reported.
Secularism and Public Education
The petitioners underscored that the circular’s directives were incompatible with the secular character of public education. They argued that the state’s actions effectively promoted the religious practices of one faith, creating an impermissible preference and undermining religious neutrality. This, they contended, was contrary to the constitutional guarantees of secularism.
Awaiting Detailed Order
A detailed court order is expected to further elucidate the legal standing of the circular. Advocates Aamir Khan and Sitara Khan represented the petitioners, advocating for the constitutional principle of secularism in educational institutions.
