47 minutes ago
5
ARTICLE AD BOX
4 min readRaipurJul 8, 2026 12:20 PM IST
The division bench stated, “The hoardings appear to have been installed by the concerned Gram Sabhas as a precautionary measure to protect the interest of indigenous tribes and local cultural heritage.” (Credit: highcourt.cg.gov.in)
The Chhattisgarh High Court rejected a petition seeking an order to stop the government from enforcing the recitation of Hindu hymns in state-funded schools, stating that the government order is not mandatory and that constitutional provisions do not ban moral instruction “disassociated from any denominational doctrines”.
This comes after the state education department made the ‘Gayatri Mantra’ and other Hindu prayers mandatory at morning assemblies—a move the Opposition termed saffronisation of education.
A petition challenging the order in the high court argued that the direction violates Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty), 25 (Freedom of Religion), 28(1) (which prohibits religious instruction in educational institutions wholly maintained out of State funds), 29 (protecting the cultural and educational interests of minorities and citizens) and 30 (empowering religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer their own educational institutions) of the Constitution. Filed on June 12, 2026, the petition said the order “creates an impermissible situation wherein students from minority communities may feel compelled to participate in and recite religious practices that do not belong to their faith” and “amounts to imparting religious instructions and promoting a particular religion in Government Schools, which is constitutionally barred”.
Counsel for the state opposed the petition, calling it “politically motivated”. The state counsel said the order “involves neither religious instruction nor conversion” and is “in perfect alignment with the National Education Policy, 2020 (NEP 2020), which mandates the integration of the Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) to foster cultural awareness.”
“The terms ‘compulsory’ and ‘ensure’ in the Government Order dated 12.6.2026 relate strictly to internal school administration and discipline and do not entail any form of religious coercion,” the state said. “The morning routine is designed solely to foster unity and focus among students. The order prescribes no negative consequences, punishment or disciplinary action against any student who chooses not to recite these verses.”
The traditional verses are ancient Indian philosophies that promote universal well-being, ecological balance and gratitude, the state argued, describing the Gayatri Mantra as an “invocation for sharp intellect and wisdom”, a “scientifically and pedagogically backed cognitive exercise”, and adding that “none of these invocations contain any religious dogma, denominational propaganda or sectarian rituals.”
Last Thursday, after hearing both sides, Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad dismissed the petition, terming it “entirely premature”. While doing so, the judge stated, “A careful perusal of the impugned order dated 12.6.2026 reveals that it does not contain any mandatory or coercive direction compelling students to act in a manner contrary to their respective religious beliefs, conscience or faith. The contents of the impugned order, read as a whole, do not disclose any express requirement obligating students to participate in any activity that would interfere with their constitutionally protected freedom of religion or freedom of conscience,” the court said.
Story continues below this ad
The judge said the petitioners had failed to place any material on record to show violation of any fundamental right or any individual or direct injury.
On the religious aspect, the judge said, “the expression ‘religious instruction’ used in Article 28(1) has a restricted meaning. It signifies that the teaching of religious customs, rituals, practices and modes of worship is strictly prohibited in educational institutions wholly maintained out of State funds. However, a plain reading of clause (1) of Article 28 makes it clear that the provision does not ban moral instruction, disassociated from any denominational doctrines, which remains an essential part of training in citizenship, maintenance of law and order in the State and growth of social cohesion,” the court said.
English (US) ·