Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Third Petition Filed By Same Petitioner For Regulation Of Religious Education
Gursimran Kaur Bakshi
10 Aug 2026 2:53 PM IST
The Supreme Court today(August 10) dismissed as withdrawn a petition seeking registration, recognition and supervision of all institutions imparting religious education to children up to 14 years.
A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, at the outset, clarified that they wouldn't entertain the third petition filed on the same issue when the Court had earlier refused to entertain two similar petitions filed by the same petitioner, Ashwini Upadhyay, on the same cause.
The bench noted that a similar petition[W.P.(C) No. 590/2026] was earlier considered by a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. That bench had noted that a previous writ petition on the same cause [WP 143/2026] was disposed of directing him to make a representation. Subsequently, WP 590 was dismissed, stating that the petitioner must await the decision on the representation given to the.
Today, the petitioner filed the third writ petition claiming that no decision has been taken on his representation. Justice Kumar responded: "You might be espousing a very good cause...It will not take us a minute to say that the third petition is to be dismissed immediately because your remedy is simple: go file a contempt; we will entertain it....This matter may require consideration after the representation but not before it."
He added: "Mr Upadhyay, you have already taken a writ which is in your favour, enforce the writ. Only in the capacity of members of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, we are giving you free advise...You should not hit a self-goal...Don't spoil a good case, you have got an order, enforce it."
Ultimately, Upadhyay decided to withdraw the petition.
As per Upadhyay's petition, thousands of non-registered institutions are radicalising gullible young children under the garb of imparting religious instructions, as they are not supervised by the State. He has stated that this has serious implications not only for internal security but also for fraternity, unity and national integration, as one can easily brainwash young children in the name of religion.
He has also sought a direction that semi-religious minority and non-minority educational institutions can't fall under Article 30, as it is a specific reiteration of Article 19(1)(g) and doesn't confer any additional rights. And, 'educational institutions of their choice' in Article 30(a) means 'secular/professional educational institutions of their choice' and not religious educational institutions. Institutions which impart religious instructions to promote any 'religion' are covered under Article 26(a).
Case Details: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 868/2026 Diary No. 41685 / 2026
