ARUNA RoY V UoI

By

Sarthika Singhal

21LLB141

Semester III

Name of the Program: 5 Years B.A., LL.B.(Hons.)

Professor (Dr.) A. Nageswar Rao

Date of Submission: 26 october 2o22

DAMoDARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIoNAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYPRSTHA, SABBAVARAM,
VISAKHAPATNAM – 531o35, ANDHRA PRADESH
 TABLE oF CoNTENTS
ACKNoWLEDGEMENT..........................................................................................................3
SYNoPSIS..................................................................................................................................4
Abstract..................................................................................................................................4
INTRoDUCTIoN...................................................................................................................5
oBJECTIVE oF THE STUDY...............................................................................................6
LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................6
RESEARCH METHoDoLoGY.............................................................................................6
SCoPE oF THE STUDY........................................................................................................6
SIGNIFICANCE oF THE STUDY........................................................................................7
RESEARCH QUESTIoNS....................................................................................................7
MoDE oF CITATIoN............................................................................................................7
SECULARISM..........................................................................................................................7
BACKGRoUND......................................................................................................................1o
FACTS oF THE CASE............................................................................................................1o
ISSUES....................................................................................................................................11
ARGUMENT FoR PETITIoNER............................................................................................11
ARGUMENT FoR RESPoNDENT.........................................................................................13
JUDGEMENT..........................................................................................................................15
REFERENCE To CoNSTITUTIoNAL DEBATES................................................................17
CASES REFERRED................................................................................................................19
A S Narayana Deekshitulu v/s State of Andhra Pradesh and ors........................................19
In Santosh Kumar and ors. v/s Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development and
ors.........................................................................................................................................2o
In SR Bommai vs Union of India........................................................................................2o
In DAV College v/s State of Punjab....................................................................................2o
SUBSEQUENT REFERENCES..............................................................................................2o
Kalpana Mehta And ors. V. UoI And ors............................................................................2o
Justice Chandrashekariah (Retired) V. Janekere C. Krishna And others.............................21
CASE CoMMENT...................................................................................................................21
CoNCLUSIoN.........................................................................................................................21
BIBLIoGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................22
 ACKNoWLEDGEMENT

My thanks and admiration are due to Dr. A. Nageswar Rao, our Constitutional Law
professor, for his important guidance and support during the paper’s development. This
project could not have been accomplished without his assistance.

Without their ongoing assistance and the materials they make accessible, the academic
division and library of DAMoDARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIoNAL LAW UNIVERSITY

would not have allowed me to complete this research by the deadline.

I also want to thank my parents and my classmates for their ongoing encouragement and for
their insights and opinions, which allowed me to advance my research.Thankyou.

Sarthika Singhal
 SYNoPSIS

Abstract
According to the dictionary, secularism is a way of life that rejects all types of religious
belief and worship, is not concerned with religion, and is related to this world or things that
are not spiritual.1

Donald Eugene Smooth has made an academic attempt to define secularism in the context of
India, stating:

“the secular state is state which gives individual and corporate freedom of religion is not
constitutionally connected to particular religion nor does it seek either to promote or
interfere with religion.”2

Studying religions would support secularism in its purest form in a society that is committed
to it. We shouldn't distance ourselves from such priceless wisdom that the sages, saints, and
seers have left behind in the name of secularism. How can we raise moral, cultured human
beings if we don't instil in them the core spiritual and human principles from an early age.
This was what was contested in Aruna Roy V. UoI.3

In this paper, the researcher undertakes a detailed assessment of the case Aruna Roy V. UoI,
popularly known as the Textbooks Case. The researcher pens down the summary and
assessment of the arguments on both the petitioner & respondent’s side for the better
understanding of the reasoning of the judgement by the three-judge bench. In particular, the
researcher also elucidates the reasoning given by each judge in the three-judge bench and the
cases which they cited to come at the reasoning. The researcher also traces down the
constitutional debates owing to Article 28 which was referred to by the judges.

INTRoDUCTIoN
Nehru stated during constitutional debates that:

1
“Kashyap. s.c, constitutional law of India, introduction and background, articles 1-226,
vol.1,2oo8 edition,universal law publishing co. at p.299.”
2
“Ibid.p.3oo”
3
(2oo2) 7 SCC 368.
 “By secular state, as I understand it, the state is not going to make any discrimination at all
against anyone progressing any specific sort of religious beliefs on the basis of religion or
community. In effect, this means that no religion in the state will be given any public support
at all. No particular religion will be patronised or endowed by the state to the exclusion of or
in favour of others, and no citizen will receive preferential treatment or face other forms of
discrimination simply because he professes a specific religion. This is something that the
state will not even consider. I believe this to be the essence of a secular state, but we must
also take great care to ensure that no one is denied the freedom to proclaim, practise, or
spread any specific religion in our country.”4

In S.R. Bommmai v. Union of India5, the supreme court elaborated on the fundamental
elements of secularism in the constitution and defended the president's rule declarations
made under article 356 in the wake of the Babri Masjid demolition on the grounds that
secularism was in danger because it was a fundamental element of the constitution and
existed even before the word secular was added. In India, secularism must be seen as a good
idea that promotes respect for all religions and equal treatment with them, in contrast to the
west. The struggle between the church and the state never gave rise to it. It may have its roots
in India's own historical history and culture, which makes pluralism or the founding fathers'
willingness to treat all people equally and justly regardless of their numbers a more likely
answer. Therefore, secularism is frequently employed in our everyday language simply as
communalism's opponent.6

oBJECTIVE oF THE STUDY

 To assess the case Aruna Roy V. UoI, popularly known as the Textbooks Case.
 To study down the summary and assessment of the arguments on both the petitioner
& respondent’s side for the better understanding of the reasoning of the judgement by
the three-judge bench.
 To elucidates the reasoning given by each judge in the three-judge bench and the
cases which they cited to come at the reasoning.
 To trace down the constitutional debates owing to Article 28 which was referred to
by the judges.

4
“Ibid.p.3o1”
5
“S.R.Bommai v. union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918”
6
“Supra.n.1.p.3o1”
LITERATURE REVIEW
The researcher has taken use of SCC and MP Jain to understand the judgement in-depth.

 SCC
SCC helped the researcher to trace down the judgements which were cited in the
current judgement and to understand the reasoning in those previous judgements. It
also helped the researcher to trace down subsequent cases in which the current
judgement was cited and what contribution it made to them.
 MP Jain
The book helped the researcher on the elucidation of the judgement with respect to
Article 28 and contributed to researcher’s study by providing the concept for Article
28 of the Constitution of India.

RESEARCH METHoDoLoGY
To support this work, the researcher has used both primary and secondary sources of
information. It is a composite research report in which the researcher has examined the case
law on Aruna Roy V. UoI using expository, narrative, descriptive, and analytical
methodologies.

SCoPE oF THE STUDY

The researcher has confined the scope of the research to analysis of the original judgement.

SIGNIFICANCE oF THE STUDY

The roles that religion and secularism play in society are distinct. While secularism acts on
the temporal component of the state action in dealing with the individuals professing diverse
religious faiths, religion is a matter of personal belief and method of worship and prayer
particular to the individual. The given case law deals with the question on imparting
education about religion being violative of Constitution of India or not. Since Secularism is
a much debated topic these days and the religion plays a great role in our life, it is necessary
to understand the crux of the caselaw in hand and how it impacted subsequent judgements
which is therein studied by the researcher in this project.

RESEARCH QUESTIoNS
 Whether the National Curriculum Framework for School Education published by the
National Council of Educational Research and Training was mandatory to be
consulted with the Central Advisory Board of Education?
 Whether education about religion or religious education is violative of Article 28 of
the Constitution of India and anti-secular?

MoDE oF CITATIoN
In this research report, the fourth edition of the oxford citation style is used.

SECULARISM
The Indian constitution's secularism, according to Justice Gajendragakar, guarantees all
citizens the same rights, with religion having no bearing whatsoever on the situation. He
claimed that the state owes no one any loyalty. Since it grants all religions the same freedom,
a particular religion as such is neither irreligious nor antireligious In a secular state,
according to M.C. Setalvad, all citizens should be treated equally and not subjected to
prejudice because of their faith. The state will respect and treat all religions and religious
groups equally without in any way interfering with their right to practise their respective
religions or places of worship.7

It has been urged not to define the term "secular," maybe because it is too elastic to have a
definite meaning and is possibly best left undefined. Secularism is not anti-god in the
constitution and is occasionally seen as a sign of a free society. Secularism is a form of
religion that emerged from the use of public amenities. It makes it possible for individuals to
understand the crucial necessity for human progress in all spheres, for cultural and social
advancement, and even for human survival. The roles that religion and secularism play in
society are distinct. While secularism acts on the temporal component of the state action in
dealing with the individuals professing diverse religious faiths, religion is a matter of
personal belief and method of worship and prayer particular to the individual.

Gandhi used the phrase "sarva-dharma-samabhav," which means "equal treatment and respect
for all religions," to describe secularism. However, we have misconstrued this phrase to
mean "negation of all religions." As a result, we forbid our kids from ever touching any of
our holy texts.

Instead of dharma nirpekh or panth nirpeksh ex state neutrality in matters of religion, the
meaning of the phrase has been sought to be that of sarva dharma sambhavea, which means
treating all religions equally or with respect. Given the stark realities of the Indian situation,
this was the only logical and plausible explanation. The western concept of secularism was
completely irrelevant. Secularism in our debate just meant that we lived in a non-theoretical
state, that the state as such had no official religion, that it views all religions equally, and that
it would not discriminate against its citizens based on their religious beliefs. This does not
imply, however, that the state has no role at all in matters of religion. The secular affairs of
mosques, temples, and other houses of worship cannot be regulated by laws. Even the state-
sponsored nature of a temple, mosque, or church cannot be claimed to be opposed to
secularism.8

Secularism does not imply that the government has no role at all in religious concerns. The
secular operations of temples, mosques, and other houses of worship may be governed by
law. If religion is utilised for political aims and promoted by political parties, the neutrality

7
Bal Patil v. union of India, AIR 2oo5 SC 3172
8
Supra.n.1.p.3o2
of the state would be broken. A religious appeal to the electorate is unconstitutional in a
secular democracy.

BACKGRoUND
The National Council of Educational Research and Training's (NCFERT) National
Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCERT). The purpose of this curriculum was
to introduce religious education into schools so that students could learn about various
religions and how they have impacted India and the rest of the world. However, it was
challenged in court on the grounds that it violated constitutional provisions and lacked the
input of the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE), a significant advisory body that
has existed since 1935.
 FACTS oF THE CASE
The National Council of Education Research and Training (hereinafter referred to as
NCERT) published the national curriculum framework for school education (hereinafter
referred to as NCFSE), which has been argued to be anti-secular and in violation of the
constitutional mandate, without consulting the Central Advisory Board of Education
(hereinafter referred to as CABE). As a result, it has been argued in this public interest
lawsuit brought under article 32 of the Indian constitution. Although CABE has been around
since 1935, it is asserted that up until this point, we always consulted CABE before framing
the new NCFSE.

ISSUES
1. Whether the National Curriculum Framework for School Education published by the
National Council of Educational Research and Training was mandatory to be
consulted with the Central Advisory Board of Education?
2. Whether education about religion or religious education is violative of Article 28 of
the Constitution of India and anti-secular?

NCFSE and the curriculum it outlines are unconstitutional because they violate the
secularism clause that is a fundamental tenet of our constitution. The respondents have not
requested the central advisory board's approval of the nation-wide curriculum framework for
school education 2ooo, and this prevents its implementation. Safe and the curriculum both
violate articles 27 and 28 of the Indian constitution as well as the fundamental rights to
education, growth, and information, which are read into the right to life under article 21.

ARGUMENT FoR PETITIoNER

It is clear that CABE's capabilities are constrained from the aforementioned two resolutions,
which were produced and are on file. Nowhere does it state that the government must
communicate with the public before establishing the framework for the national curriculum
for schooling. However, it is argued that since years, CABE has always been contacted
before creating such national curricula, and as a result, the government of NCERT's failure to
do so is against the established principle and has an ulterior aim.

This contribution cannot be accepted in our opinion. First of all, it must be emphasised that
CABE is a non-statutory organisation created by the Indian government on occasion through
resolutions. It is so true that it has been operating since 1935. However, as it was created
through the exercise of governmental executive power, it cannot be said that CABE was not
consulted. Any statutory regulation or rule is violated by the NCERT policy.

It is further argued that CABE is still in operation today, as demonstrated by the Rajya Sabha
website's listing of organisations where its candidates are present and the fact that the matter
of CABE's permission was brought up by lawmakers and others in July 2oo1, before the
NCFSE was finalised. However, as seen by the current case I filed before this court, the
administration did not successfully rebuild the body. It is not acceptable for the union of
India, which has failed to fulfil its obligation to fill the vacancies, to claim that the approval
of CABE was not requested because it has not been reconstituted in the past year in an
attempt to cover up its own wrongdoing. Additionally, it is claimed that the action plan
According to PoA from 1992, CABE has historically served as a venue for fostering national
consensus on educational issues. The National Policy on Education 1986 (NPE 1986) was
examined by PoA, and some minor changes were made. It would be anticipated that CABE
will contribute significantly to the deployment of NCFSE.

The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently objected to the entire aforementioned
paragraph, with the exception of the following sentence: "What is required today is not
religious education but education about religions, their fundamentals, the values
inherent therein, as well as comparative study of the philosophy of all religions." It is
argued that teaching about religion would violate article 28 and the fundamental principle of
the constitution, namely secularism.

The petitioner has taken some sentences from the competition in order to challenge the
policy released by NCERT. “This national curriculum is based on an earlier report submitted
by several committees, including the Radhakrishnana commission (1948–49), Kothari
commission (1964–66), National policy on education (1986), Ramamurti committee
(199o), and central advisory board of education committee on policy (1992), which have
highlighted the urgent need to make the educational system value-based. The report was
submitted to parliament on 22 January 1999 by the S.B. Chawan committee.”
on the grounds that the national curriculum violates the requirements of Article 28 of the
Constitution. The focus of Duty Art. 28 is entirely on preventing the importation of religious
institutions engaged in performing religious globe ship.

ARGUMENT FoR RESPoNDENT

Before establishing the national curricular framework, talks and workshops were place at
various levels, according to a submission by the respondent's learned council (NCF).
Without a doubt, this is a contentious issue that doesn't need to be resolved.

However, as was already mentioned, the main responsibility of CABE under the resolution is
not to periodically review educational progress or to assess how well the education policy
has been implemented, but rather to provide relevant advice to the central and state
governments as well as other relevant agencies. Suo notu may also constitute guidance on
any educational issue, therefore it cannot be said that NCERT's refusal to consult CABE is
contrary to established practise or done so for any nefarious purposes. The union of India
and NCERT, it is further noted, have simply argued in their counter-affidavit that there is no
legal duty to consult CABE and that, in any case, CABE has not existed since the alleged
expiration of term in 1994. There is no dispute over the fact that CABE did approve NCF,
1998 in the supplemental affidavit of NCERT that was submitted on January 8, 2oo2, or in
the minutes of the 38th CABE meeting in 1975, from which these minutes were taken. The
pertinent section made it obvious who's crucial role CABE plays in the curricular
Framework.

The respondent NCERT produced an affidavit in which it claimed to have done as the
legislative committee had instructed. After being approved, the report by the S.B. Chawhan
committee on value-based education was tabled, and because there was no objection,
NCERT was requested to execute it. The draught curriculum document was also given to the
education ministers of all the states and their governments, who would have become CABE
members had it been recreated, as well as other institutions and individual specialists.

Regarding the freedom to attend religious instruction or worship in specific educational

institutions as stated in Article 28: “no person attending any educational institution
recognised by the State or receiving aid out of State funds shall be required to attend any
religious instruction programme. Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to an educational
institution administered by the State but established under any endowment or trust that
requires that religious instruction be imparted in such institution.”

Referring to Article 28, “ Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious

worship in certain educational institutions”

 “No religion instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly

maintained out of State funds.”
 “Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to an educational institution which is administered
by the State but has been established under any endowment or trust which requires
that religious instruction shall be imparted in such institution”
 No person attending any educational institution recognised by the State or receiving
aid out of State funds shall be required to take part in any religious instruction that
may be imparted in such institution or to attend any religious worship that may be
 conducted in such institution or in any premises attached thereto unless such person
or, if such person is a minor, his guardian has given his consent thereto Cultural and
Educational Rights.”

JUDGEMENT
Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari stated that CABE should have been contacted while
developing such a significant national policy, even though the lack of consultation would not
cause the national policy to be overturned by the court. "In a constitutional democracy,
Parliament is supreme, and policies must be formulated and authorised by the Parliament,"
he said in paragraph 9o. Both CABE and NCERT were established by Parliament, and any
disagreements between their positions should be discussed. The National Education Policy
will finally be decided by the Parliament, whether positively or negatively. The court need
not get involved in the middle.
He asserted that a fine line must be carefully maintained between religious instruction and
religious education. He also discussed how the secularism embodied in the Indian
Constitution makes it difficult to discern between religious teaching and education, which
would require treating different religions with an understanding attitude and attempting to
explain it to children. To prevent the brainwashing of youngsters in a specific religion, this
must be maintained when establishing such a national curriculum. Because it discourages
exclusivism and promotes inclusivism, religious plurality should be tolerated in India. The
youngsters of our nation need to be educated so that they can recognise the wide variety and
complexity of religious variations while also comprehending the one ultimate reality.

Justice M.B. Shah ruled that as CABE is a non-statutory organisation, neither its
consultation nor approval should be requested before formulating the curriculum.
Additionally, CABE has in fact been crucial in preserving cooperation between the centre
and the state, but this does not imply that any policy developed by an independent
organisation must first be discussed with CABE. He claimed that no mention of religious
teaching being against Article 28 is made in the curriculum.

It was said that students could receive religious education for broad knowledge and that
every religion has a similar core; only the behaviours vary. In the name of educating people
about religion, dogma and superstition should not be spread.

The term "religious instructions," as used in Article 28(1), has a narrow definition; it refers
to the teaching of practises and places of worship that are not permitted in educational
institutions, but it does not forbid the philosophical and cultural study of religion.When
defining secularism, it is defined as total neutrality toward religion and apathy of all types.
Despite this, the state has not been able to assist in eradicating misunderstandings and
internal intolerance amongst groups of individuals who hold various religious beliefs. The
development of understanding and respect for all religions is thus one of the two positive
aspects of secularism.

According to Justice H.K. Sema, it is improper to ignore such a significant advisory as

CABE, hence the Union of India has been ordered to fill the vacant positions and reassemble
CABE. Additionally, a meeting to discuss the curriculum is to be held before the following
academic term. He added, however, that curriculum validity will not be affected by non-
consultation. In Article 28 (1), the term "religious instructions" has a Restricted meaning. It
implies that teaching of traditions, practises, or rituals is not permitted at educational
institutions completely supported by public funding. However, Article 28 (1) cannot be
interpreted as forbidding the study of many religions practised in and outside of India. The
study of philosophy, which is inherently founded on the study of religions, would be
forbidden if that prohibition were to be interpreted to include the phrase "religious
instructions." This would amount to depriving children of their right to comprehend their
own faith as well as the religions of those with whom they may choose to live and engage
while in India.

Therefore, the Constitution does not forbid studying religions, and its provisions shouldn't
be interpreted that way because doing so would completely defeat the chances of human
spiritual development, which is regarded as the highest aspiration of existence. Any
interpretation of Article 28(1) that disregards a person's fundamental right to receive
education about other religions within and outside of his own country, as well as about other
religions, would be detrimental to that person's fundamental right to information, knowledge,
and the ability to live his life according to the philosophy of his choice.

REFERENCE To CoNSTITUTIoNAL DEBATES

Lakshmi Kanta Maitra, Pandit: I would like to ask the Honorable Member a question. For
instance, the Sanskrit College in Calcutta is a university that is entirely run by the
government. There, students can learn about the Upanishads, the Gita, the Smrithis, and the
Vedas. Similar to this, there are Sanskrit institutions throughout Bengal where instruction in
these subjects is provided. Article 22(1) of your constitution states that no religious
instruction may be provided by a facility entirely supported by public funds. These are
unquestionably supported by public money. My question is whether it could be said that the
teachings found in the Vedas, Smrithis, Shastras, or Upanishads fall under the definition of a
religious instruction. All of these institutions would then need to be shut down.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Well, it is quite difficult for me because I am unsure of the exact
nature of the institutions that my friend Mr. Maitra has mentioned.

Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: Consider the Gita, Upanishads, Vedas, and other similar
subjects taught in government-run Sanskrit colleges and schools. Herein lies my point. It
does not involve any research. It merely serves as instruction in religion or related fields of
study. Do lectures on the Gita and Upanishads qualify as religious teaching, I wonder?
Expounding the Upanishads is not a subject for academic study. Vice President, please. It has
to do with instructing pupils, and I am aware of at least one incident in which a Muslim
student was enrolled in the Sanskrit College. Virendra H.V. Kamath To be clear, does my
friend Dr. Ambedkar believe that religious education should not be required in institutions
administered by a community solely for members of that group?

The Hon. Professor B. R. Ambedkar: They are in charge of it. The decision to make it
required or not is up to the community. All we do is establish that community won't have the
authority to make attendance mandatory for students from communities who don't belong to
the community that runs the school.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena: The word "religious instruction" should be defined in the
Constitution in the manner that you have done. The Honorable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: When
the case is brought before the courts, I believe they will make a decision.

The pertinent section of the constitutional discussions mentioned above and Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar's final comment provide insight into the thoughts of the Constitution's framers.
They understood the distinction between "religious teaching," as defined by Clauses (1), (2),
and (3) of Article 28, and "study of religions," which is a field of philosophic inquiry. The
provisions found in Articles 25 to 3o and Part IVA added to the Constitution, which contains
Article 51A regulating fundamental duties of citizens, mirror the word "secularism"
mentioned in the preamble. It must be interpreted in light of the Constitution's more than 5o-
year history of operation.

Understanding and intolerance between groups of people of various religions, faiths, and
beliefs have not been eliminated by the full neutrality towards religion and apathy for all
types of religious teachings in state institutions. Therefore, "secularism" can have a positive
connotation that fosters tolerance and respect for various religions. Non-discrimination
against individuals by the State based on their choice of religion is the cornerstone of
secularism.

"Secularism" can be practised by either taking a wholly neutral stance toward religions or by
taking a proactive stance by encouraging one group of religious people to respect and
appreciate the religion and beliefs of another group of people. Mutual mistrust and
intolerance can be gradually erased on the basis of such understanding and respect for one
another's religious beliefs. Therefore, it cannot be said that studying religion in schools is an
attempt to undermine the Constitution's secularist ethos.

CASES REFERRED
A S Narayana Deekshitulu v/s State of Andhra Pradesh and ors9

Justice Hansaria highlighted the distinction between religion and dharma in this instance.
According to him, one component of our old conception of the law was the unambiguous
acknowledgment of the supremacy of Dharma and the expression of Dharma's status, which
is somewhat like to the modern idea of the rule of law. He cited texts from historic buildings
and asserted that only the rule of law and the Dharma can preserve the peace and harmony in
the state. It was stated that sectarian religion is only accessible to a certain group of people,
but Dharma excludes none.

9
A S Narayana Deekshitulu v/s State of Andhra Pradesh and ors. AIR 1996 SC 1765
In Santosh Kumar and ors. v/s Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource
Development and ors.10
The Court ruled that the nine-judge bench's acceptance of the teaching of Sanskrit as an
elective course does not contradict secularism. Any student who wants to study Sanskrit can
do so as a supplementary subject; it is not required. Sanskrit's significance was stressed by
the Court, which ruled that its exclusion from the CBSE curriculum was not justified.

In SR Bommai vs Union of India11

The court stated that secularism does not imply an anti-religion state, it focuses on the
religion-neutral state.

In DAV College v/s State of Punjab12

Dayanand Anglo Vedic College contested the constitutionality of a number of clauses in the
Guru Nanak University Amritsar Act of 1969. When examined, it was determined that even
if the university made provisions for studying and researching the life and teachings of any
saint, it could not compel all of the colleges to do so. The court ruled that providing an
academic study of any great saint of India and teaching of their philosophy and culture about
their impact on the world and Indian civilization about its impact on the world cannot be
considered as making provisions for religious instruction. The provision merely indicates
that any student can engage himself in the study while keeping in mind that the study of
research is purely cultural and educational.

SUBSEQUENT REFERENCES

Kalpana Mehta And ors. V. UoI And ors.

The NCERT-created education strategy was contested by the petitioners in Aruna Roy v.
UoI. When addressing the aforementioned matter, this court specifically referred to the
report of the Parliamentary Committee, which contained a number of suggestions. After
making this reference to the report, the court came to the conclusion that if the NCERT

10
Santosh Kumar and ors. v/s Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development and ors. MANU SC oo6o
1995
11
SR bommai vs Union of India MANU SC o444 1994
12
DAV College v/s State of Punjab MANU SC oo39 1971
accepts and seeks to follow the suggestions provided by the Parliamentary Committee, it
cannot be said that its decision was arbitrary or unjustifiable.

Justice Chandrashekariah (Retired) V. Janekere C. Krishna And others

The words and expressions used in the Constitution, in that sense, have no fixed meaning and
must receive interpretation based on experience of the people in the course of working of the
Constitution.

CASE CoMMENT

I concur with the judges' conclusion in this instance. The prohibition on religious teaching in
Article 28 does not refer to the study of religion. The right of a child to comprehend his own
faith will be denied if the study of religion is outlawed by Article 28. In the Constitution,
secularism is defined as the equal respect of all religions. Because the core of every religion
is the same and only the customs differ, how will someone understand their own religion and
other religions if the study of religion is prohibited? If they are unable to accept other
religions because they are ignorant of their philosophical underpinnings.

CoNCLUSIoN
The distinction between religious education and religious instruction is established by the
case of Aruna Roy and others v. Union of India and others. It also examines the necessity of
realising that all religions are equivalent and founded on similar ideas. "The lamps are
different but the light is the same; it comes from beyond," as it was said in the case's
paragraph 7o,

The petitioners believed that the NCERT curriculum should be declared unlawful because it
violated article 28 of the Constitution. The Court, however, determined that Article 28 has a
narrow reading and does not forbid the study of faiths in a cultural context that will enable
students to understand the tenets of every religion and to respect them all. This will support
preserving sociability. To sustain the charisma of education, it is important to maintain the
balance and separation between religious instruction and education.

While it is understood in the present instance how advantageous it would be to study

religion, it should have also been taken into account at that time how it would have
influenced the students' mentality if things went wrong. That could, however, turn out to be
unfavourable, which would be expected.

BIBLIoGRAPHY

o ARUNA RoY V UNIoN oF INDIA ] (2oo2) 7 SCC 368.

o A S Narayana Deekshitulu v/s State of Andhra Pradesh and ors. AIR 1996 SC 1765
o Santosh Kumar and ors. v/s Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development
and ors. MANU SC oo6o 1995
o SR bommai vs Union of India MANU SC o444 1994
o DAV College v/s State of Punjab MANU SC oo39 1971
o Kashyap. s.c, constitutional law of India, introduction and background, articles 1-
226, vol.1,2oo8 edition,universal law publishing co. at p.299.
o Ibid.p.3oo
o Ibid.p.3o1
o Supra.n.1.p.3o1
o Supra.n.1.p.3o2
o Bal Patil v. union of India, AIR 2oo5 SC 3172
o S.R.Bommai v. union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918