Supreme Court Issues Notice Over Education Ministry’s Inaction
The Supreme Court of India recently issued a notice concerning a contempt of court petition filed against the Union Education Ministry. The petition accuses the Ministry of not taking action on a representation that sought to regulate institutions providing secular and religious education to children up to the age of 14, despite a judicial order to address this matter.
The petition, submitted by BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, highlights the existence of numerous unregistered institutions allegedly involved in radicalizing children under the guise of religious education. Earlier this year, on May 11, the Supreme Court directed the Central government to consider Upadhyay’s representation within a two-month timeframe. However, the Education Secretary has reportedly failed to comply, prompting Upadhyay to file the current contempt petition.
Bench Demands Response from Education Secretary
The case is presently before a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, who have requested a response from TK Anil Kumar, the Secretary of the Union Ministry of Education. The court has scheduled the matter for further hearing in four weeks.
In his previous plea, Upadhyay called for directives obligating Central and State governments to ensure the registration, recognition, supervision, and monitoring of all educational institutions offering secular and religious instruction to young children. According to Upadhyay, Article 30 of the Indian Constitution, which grants minorities the right to establish and manage educational institutions, should not extend additional privileges to institutions offering religious education. Instead, he argues that these institutions should be governed under Article 26, which covers the freedom to manage religious affairs.
Previous Supreme Court Rulings and Current Proceedings
The Supreme Court had previously closed Upadhyay’s initial plea by instructing the Central government to review his representation submitted in February. Despite this directive, a similar public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Upadhyay was dismissed by the Court in August, as he was advised not to submit successive petitions on the same issue.
More Read
During the recent hearing, Upadhyay emphasized the constitutional implications of the case. However, the Court clarified that constitutional matters would not be deliberated upon in contempt proceedings. “This is about contempt. Our focus is on compliance with our order, not constitutional debates,” remarked the bench before adjourning the case. The issue is slated for further examination on October 16.
