Supreme Court Declines To Entertain Plea Seeking Govt Approval For Institutions Imparting Religious Instruction To Children

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a writ petition seeking direction to the Centre and States to register all schools and institutions imparting secular education and/or religious instruction to children up to the age of 14 years.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the appropriate authority.

“Before the court you have to show that you have approached the authority with the same prayer and the authority has either declined to consider or is sitting tight. You go to the authority, in the next round we will consider”, Justice Datta said.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay that sought directions to register all institutions imparting education or religious instruction to children up to 14 years in the spirit of Articles 21A, 39(f), 45 and 51A(k).

The plea also sought declarations on the scope of Articles 19(1)(g), 26 and 30 of the Constitution and the meaning of the expression “educational institutions of their choice” in Article 30 (Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions).

At the outset, Justice Datta questioned the relief sought. He said that the Court did not understand what was meant by “registration”. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioner, responded that the prayer should be understood as seeking “recognition”.

Justice Datta then pointed out that the petitioner had not submitted any representation to the authorities before approaching the Court. The bench said that the petitioner should first approach the authority and that the Court would consider the matter in the next round, if required.

Sankaranarayanan submitted that the Allahabad High Court and the Kerala High Court had taken opposite views on the issue. He stated that the Allahabad High Court had held that such an institution could continue to run without recognition, while the Kerala High Court had held that it could not and had to be closed down.

Sankaranarayanan said that though Article 21A of the Constitution guarantees compulsory and free education to children between the ages of six and fourteen years, the petitioner's concern was about children who were not receiving compulsory education and were being sent to a parallel methodology of religious instruction. He clarified that the issue was not confined to madrasas but extended to any institution imparting religious instruction.

However, Justice Datta opined that the executive should first deal with the issue. Thus, the Court allowed the writ petition to be withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate authority.

According to the petition, the cause of action arose on January 16, 2026, when the Allahabad High Court allowed an unregistered madrasa to impart religious instruction in Madarasa Ahle Sunnat Imam Ahmad Raza v. State of UP. The petition stated that after enquiry, the petitioner found that there was a large number of unregistered madrasas, particularly in border districts.

The petition contended that thousands of unregistered and unregulated institutions were imparting religious instruction to children. It further contended that Article 21A, read with Articles 39(f), 45 and 51A(k), obligated the State to ensure free, compulsory and quality education, and quality education cannot be ensured without registration and supervision.

The petition contended that the State is constitutionally obligated to register all institutions, whether religious or non-religious, that impart education or religious instruction to children as they are “gullible and naïve due to their tender age”.

The petition further stated that the issue has implications for national security as young children are susceptible to religious brainwashing and manipulation and that if children are manipulated, the future can be destructive. The petition also argued that registration is necessary to prevent trafficking and child labour.

The petition highlighted that unregistered institutions lack criteria for appointment of teachers and do not undergo any audit of syllabus or curriculum. It further contended that the State cannot effectively implement child welfare schemes in unrecognised institutions.

The petitioner further sought declaration that institutions imparting religious instruction fall under Article 26 and not under Articles 19(1)(g) or 30(1), and that the words “educational institutions of their choice” in Article 30 refer to secular or professional educational institutions and not religious institutions.

The petition contended that institutions imparting religious instruction are presently being covered under Article 30 in the case of minorities, whereas similar non-minority institutions fall under Article 26, violating Article 14. It contended that semi-religious minority and non-minority institutions cannot fall under different constitutional provisions.

Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 143/2026

Case Title – Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India