Key Takeaways
- The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a petition challenging a state directive mandating recitation of certain prayers and verses in government schools.
- The Court, in its order dated July 2, 2026, held that the petition was premature and based on mere apprehension rather than actual grievance.
- The directive, which included Saraswati Vandana and Gayatri Mantra, was challenged as violative of Articles 14, 21, 25, 28(1), 29, and 30 of the Constitution of India.
- The Court clarified that "religious instruction" under Article 28(1) prohibits teaching religious customs and rituals but does not ban moral instruction disassociated from denominational doctrines.
- Practitioners should note that challenges to such policies require concrete evidence of fundamental rights violation, rather than speculative apprehensions, for a petition to be maintainable.
Key Background Facts
The State of Chhattisgarh's School Education Department issued a directive on June 12, 2026, mandating a daily school assembly routine. This routine included the recitation of the National Anthem, National Song, Deep Mantra, Saraswati Vandana, Guru Mantra, Shanti Mantra, and accounts of Great Personalities at the start of the school day. Upon dismissal, students were to recite the Rajya Geet, Gayatri Mantra, and Shanti Mantra. Petitioners, including Abdul Salam Rizvi, former Chairman of the Waqf Board, challenged this directive. They argued it compelled students from minority communities to participate in religious practices contrary to their faith.Legal Issue Before the Court
The primary legal issue before the Chhattisgarh High Court was whether the directive mandating the recitation of various mantras and verses in state-funded schools violated fundamental rights. Specifically, the petitioners contended it infringed Articles 14, 21, 25, 28(1), 29, and 30 of the Constitution of India, pertaining to equality, personal liberty, freedom of conscience, prohibition of religious instruction in state-funded institutions, and the protection of minority rights.Court's Analysis
The Chhattisgarh High Court, after carefully perusing the impugned order, concluded that the petition was premature. The Court found no mandatory or coercive element within the directive that would compel students to act against their religious beliefs, conscience, or faith.Interpretation of "Religious Instruction" under Article 28(1)
The Court emphasized that the expression "religious instruction" in Article 28(1) of the Constitution has a restricted meaning. It specifically prohibits the teaching of religious customs, rituals, practices, and modes of worship in educational institutions wholly maintained out of State funds. However, the Court clarified that this provision does not extend to banning moral instruction. Such moral guidance, when disassociated from any denominational doctrines, remains an essential component of training in citizenship, maintaining law and order, and fostering social cohesion.Lack of Demonstrated Injury
The Court noted the petitioners' complete failure to present any relevant material proving a violation of fundamental rights. No individual or direct injury was shown to have resulted from the directive's implementation. The State, represented by Mr. Anand Dadariya, had argued that the policy was successfully implemented without complaints from students, parents, or teachers, suggesting the petitioners' apprehensions were speculative.Important Observations
The Court observed that the impugned order, when read holistically, did not contain any explicit requirement obligating students to participate in activities interfering with their constitutionally protected freedom of religion or conscience. This observation directly addressed the petitioners' claims of compelled religious participation. The State's detailed explanation of each mantra's pedagogical significance, emphasizing universal values, ecological ethics, and intellectual development rather than religious dogma, likely influenced this observation. The Court further noted that the terms "compulsory" and "ensure" in the government order related strictly to internal school administration and discipline, not religious coercion, and no negative consequences for non-participation were prescribed.Outcome
The writ petition was dismissed by the Chhattisgarh High Court as being premature. The Court found that the petitioners' challenge was based on mere apprehension rather than any actual grievance. However, the Court reserved liberty for the petitioners to approach the Court afresh with an appropriate petition, supported by cogent and relevant material, should any real exigency arise in the future.Practical Implications
For legal practitioners, this judgment underscores the necessity of demonstrating concrete injury or actual infringement of fundamental rights when challenging state directives on grounds of constitutional violation. Mere apprehension or speculative fears, without verifiable evidence of coercion or violation of religious freedom, may lead to the dismissal of a petition as premature. The Court's interpretation of Article 28(1) also clarifies that state-sponsored activities promoting moral instruction, universal values, or cultural heritage, if disassociated from denominational religious doctrines, are likely to be upheld. Practitioners advising on education policy or challenging similar directives must gather robust evidence of actual religious instruction or coercion.Frequently Asked Questions
What constitutes "religious instruction" under Article 28(1) of the Constitution?
Article 28(1) prohibits the imparting of "religious instruction" in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds. The Chhattisgarh High Court clarified that this term specifically refers to the teaching of religious customs, rituals, practices, and modes of worship that are tied to particular denominational doctrines. It does not encompass moral instruction that is disassociated from any specific religious faith.
Can state-funded schools mandate the recitation of verses like Saraswati Vandana or Gayatri Mantra?
The Chhattisgarh High Court, in this specific case, found that the mandated recitation of verses like Saraswati Vandana and Gayatri Mantra, as explained by the State, aimed at promoting universal well-being, ecological balance, gratitude, mental concentration, and cultural awareness. The Court concluded that these were intended as moral instructions and not as specific religious instructions, provided there is no coercion or negative consequence for non-participation.
What is the requirement for challenging such state directives in court?
To successfully challenge a state directive, such as one mandating certain practices in schools, petitioners must demonstrate a concrete injury or actual violation of fundamental rights. The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the present petition as premature because it was based on speculative apprehensions rather than any proven individual or direct infringement of constitutional freedoms like freedom of religion or conscience.
How does the National Education Policy 2020 relate to directives on cultural awareness in schools?
The State argued that the impugned directive aligns with the National Education Policy 2020 (NEP 2020), which mandates the integration of Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) to foster cultural awareness. The government contended that such policy measures, aimed at operationalizing national pedagogical goals, cannot be labeled as unconstitutional or communal when they cultivate respect for ancient secular values and national heritage.
Does the judgment prohibit future challenges to similar school policies?
No, the Chhattisgarh High Court expressly reserved liberty for the petitioners to approach the Court afresh if any exigency arises in the future. This implies that if concrete evidence of coercion, religious instruction, or actual infringement of fundamental rights emerges, a new petition, supported by cogent and relevant material, would be maintainable.
