Education Ministry failed to act against unregistered institutions that radicalise children: Plea in Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on a contempt of court petition accusing the Union Education Ministry of failing to examine a representation seeking the monitoring of institutions imparting secular and/or religious education to children up to 14 years of age, despite a court order to consider this issue [Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. TK Anil Kumar].

BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay had filed a petition in the matter, raising concerns that there were thousands of unregistered institutions that were radicalising gullible children under the garb of imparting religious instruction.

On May 11 this year, the top court had directed the Central government to decide on Upadhyay's representation on the issue within two months.

Upadhyay has now approached the Court with a contempt of court petition, on allegations that the Education Secretary has failed to do so.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu today sought a response from TK Anil Kumar, the Secretary of the Union Ministry of Education.

The matter will be heard next after four weeks.

Upadhyay's earlier plea had sought directions to the Central and State governments to take appropriate steps to register, recognise, supervise and monitor all institutions, imparting secular education and/or religious instruction to children up to the age of 14 years.

Upadhyay asserted that Article 30 of the Constitution of India, which confers rights on minorities to establish and administer educational institutions, is a reiteration of Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to carry on trade and profession). Hence, there should be no additional rights available under Article 30 to institutions imparting religious education, he said.

Institutions imparting religious education should be declared as falling under Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) and not Article 30, his plea further stated.

On May 11, the Court closed this plea by directing the Central government to look into a representation sent by Upadhyay on the matter in February. This is to be done within two months, the Court said.

In August, the Court also refused to entertain a similar public interest litigation (PIL) plea, observing that Upadhyay cannot file successive petitions on the same issue. Upadhyay withdrew the said PIL, in response.

He has now filed a contempt of court petition, highlighting that the government had flouted the Court's May 11 directive to examine his representation.

During today's hearing, Upadhyay submitted that the matter involved a constitutional issue.

The Court, however, made it clear that it would not examine constitutional questions in contempt proceedings.

"This is contempt. In contempt, we will not consider any constitutional issues. We will only ensure our order is complied with. When they give hearing, you go and establish ...Let them come first," the Court said, before adjourning the case.

The matter is listed next on October 16.

[Read Live Coverage]