The Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected a petition challenging a state government directive regarding the recitation of prayers in government schools. The court ruled the petition premature, noting the circular does not mandate student participation or violate constitutional rights. This decision clarifies the legal boundary between moral education and religious instruction in state-funded institutions.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a legal challenge against a state government directive that encouraged the recitation of prayers, including the Gayatri Mantra and Saraswati Vandana, in government-run schools. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, presiding over the matter, concluded that the petition was premature because the claimants did not provide evidence of any actual violation of rights or proof that students were being forced to participate against their will.
Clarification on Moral vs Religious Instruction
A central aspect of the court's observation was the interpretation of Article 28(1) of the Indian Constitution. This constitutional provision prohibits religious instruction in educational institutions that are entirely funded by the state. The court drew a clear distinction between religious instruction, which involves teaching specific rituals and worship practices, and moral instruction. The bench noted that moral instruction intended for citizenship training and fostering social cohesion does not fall under the constitutional prohibition of religious instruction.
The court emphasized that the state government’s circular, when read in its entirety, lacks any coercive language that would obligate students to engage in activities that conflict with their personal religious beliefs or freedom of conscience. Because no evidence of mandatory participation or student distress was presented, the bench determined that the state's directive did not cross the threshold of constitutional infringement.
Arguments from Involved Parties
The petition, which included among its challengers a former chairman of the Chhattisgarh Waqf Board, Abdul Salam Rizvi, had argued that the state’s mandate was a departure from its secular obligations. The petitioners contended that by promoting prayers associated with a single religion, the state was failing to provide necessary exemptions for students of other faiths. Conversely, the state government maintained that the verses were chosen to instill discipline and reflect cultural heritage, stating that the implementation of the directive had proceeded without receiving formal complaints from parents or students.
While the court dismissed the current petition, it provided liberty to the petitioners to approach the judiciary again with fresh, concrete evidence should they find that the directive leads to actual future exigencies or instances of forced participation. For now, the government's current stance remains unchanged as the judicial challenge has been cleared, allowing the policy to continue under the court's observation that it currently does not breach legal or constitutional mandates.