New Delhi, August 10, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed as withdrawn a public interest litigation seeking registration, recognition, supervision and monitoring of institutions imparting secular education or religious instruction to children up to the age of 14.
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi declined to entertain the petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, noting that it was his third plea on the issue after two earlier petitions had already been dealt with by the court.
The Bench noted that an earlier petition on the same cause had been disposed of with liberty to Upadhyay to make a representation to the authorities. A subsequent petition was dismissed with the observation that he should await a decision on that representation.
The latest plea, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, sought directions to the Centre and state governments to ensure registration, recognition, supervision and monitoring of all institutions providing secular education and/or religious instruction to children up to 14 years.
It also sought constitutional declarations concerning Articles 19, 25, 26, 28 and 30, including the contention that Article 30(1) is a specific reiteration of Article 19(1)(g), and that institutions imparting religious instruction fall within Article 26. The petitioner further sought a declaration that “educational institutions of their choice” under Article 30 refers to secular or professional educational institutions and not religious institutions.
The plea claimed that during visits to Gonda, Bahraich, Shravasti, Balrampur, Siddharthnagar and Maharajganj districts of Uttar Pradesh from January 23, 2026, onwards, Upadhyay encountered institutions allegedly operating without registration or recognition. It further claimed that such institutions were proliferating in border districts elsewhere in the country.
The petitioner alleged that thousands of unregistered institutions could expose children to radicalisation and claimed that inadequate government oversight could have implications for internal security, fraternity, national unity and integration.
The plea invoked Article 21-A along with Articles 39(f), 45 and 51A(k), arguing that the government has an obligation to ensure registration, recognition, supervision and monitoring of institutions providing education or religious instruction to children.
It also raised concerns about child safety, trafficking and child labour, besides the effective implementation of welfare schemes. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs K. Shyam Sunder in support of the argument for equal quality education.
FOLLOW NOW
