![\"Supreme](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-133104272,imgsize-63346,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/supreme-court-refuses-pil-seeking-regulation-of-institutions-imparting-religious-instruction-to-children.jpg\" "\\"SC")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nThe Supreme Court on Monday, August 10, refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions for the registration, recognition, and monitoring of institutions that provide secular education or religious instruction to children below the age of 14.The petition was filed by BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. It sought a regulatory mechanism for institutions that, according to the petitioner, impart religious instruction to young children without adequate registration or state supervision.The Supreme Court’s decision means that the wider issues raised in the petition were not examined on their merits. The court did not enter into a detailed consideration of the allegations made against such institutions.<\/p>\n The petition called for institutions providing education or religious instruction to children up to the age of 14 to be brought under an appropriate system of registration, recognition and monitoring.Upadhyay argued that children are particularly impressionable and could be vulnerable to being influenced in the name of religion. The petition claimed that some institutions were functioning without adequate state oversight while relying on the protection available to minority educational institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution.The plea sought measures to identify such institutions and ensure that they follow prescribed educational and regulatory standards.<\/p>\n A central argument in the petition concerned Article 30(1) of the Constitution.Article 30(1) gives religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The provision is an important constitutional safeguard for minority educational rights and has been interpreted by courts in several cases.The petitioner, however, alleged that the provision was being used by some institutions to operate outside adequate regulatory oversight.The PIL claimed that thousands of unregistered institutions could be imparting religious instruction to children without sufficient monitoring. It further alleged that young children could be susceptible to what the petitioner described as radicalisation and religious influence.These claims were part of the petitioner’s submissions and were not established as findings by the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n The issue involves a difficult constitutional balance. On one side is the State’s responsibility to ensure that children receive education in a safe and regulated environment and that institutions comply with applicable educational standards.On the other is the constitutional protection granted to religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.Any regulatory framework in this area would therefore have to consider both children’s educational interests and constitutionally protected minority rights.The question of how far the State can regulate minority educational institutions has previously reached the courts. Judicial decisions have examined issues including educational standards, administrative autonomy and the extent of permissible state regulation.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court’s refusal to entertain the PIL is significant because the allegations and demands made in the petition were not subjected to a substantive judicial examination.The petition had sought directions that could have resulted in greater scrutiny of institutions imparting religious instruction to children. It also called for mechanisms to identify institutions operating without registration and bring them within an appropriate monitoring system.However, with the court declining to entertain the plea, no such directions were issued through this petition.The decision does not, by itself, amount to a judicial finding either that the petitioner’s allegations were correct or that all institutions covered by the concerns raised are operating outside the law.<\/p>\n Article 30(1) is part of the Fundamental Rights chapter of the Constitution. It provides that minorities shall have the right to set up and manage their own educational institutions. The provision has been made for the purpose of protecting the educational and cultural rights of minorities.Nevertheless, the said right is not totally divorced from the larger regulatory scheme that exists in regard to the field of education. Courts have often looked into the issue of the connection between autonomy and valid regulation of the state.This constitutional context renders the suggestion of regulating all minority educational institutions a complex one.<\/p>\n As of now, the decision of the apex court not to hear the PIL application does mean that the specific regulatory regime desired by the petitioner remains without judicial guidance in this case.In a wider sense, nevertheless, the issue is one which raises some important considerations with regard to the education of children, the responsibility of institutions, religious teachings, and constitutional safeguards.Any attempt in the future to regulate the institutions giving either religious or secular education to children will have to take these considerations into account.<\/div>\nWhat did the PIL seek?<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
Petitioner raises concerns over Article 30<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
Why is regulation of such institutions a sensitive issue?<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
Supreme Court does not examine PIL on merits<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
What is Article 30(1)?<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
What happens next?<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n