Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice to Union Education Secretary Over Plea Seeking Regulation of Religious Education Institutions
The Supreme Court has issued notice to Union Education Secretary T.K. Anil Kumar on a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with an earlier direction to consider a representation seeking regulation, registration and monitoring of institutions imparting religious or secular education to children below the age of 14. The matter was heard on September 15 by a Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu.
The Court has sought a response from the Education Secretary and directed that the matter be listed after four weeks. At the same time, the Bench dispensed with the personal appearance of the Secretary, meaning that he has not been directed to appear personally before the Court at this stage.
The contempt petition has been filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. He alleges that the Union Education Ministry failed to act on his representation despite an earlier Supreme Court direction requiring the competent authority to examine the matter and take an appropriate decision.
The dispute originates from proceedings in which Upadhyay sought Supreme Court intervention for a regulatory framework covering institutions that provide education or religious instruction to children below 14 years. On May 11, 2026, the Supreme Court had disposed of the earlier plea by directing the Centre to consider the representation and take an appropriate decision within two months, with the decision to be communicated to the petitioner without delay.
According to the petitioner, he subsequently forwarded his representation and the Supreme Court’s order to the concerned authorities but did not receive a decision. He therefore returned to the Supreme Court with the contempt petition, alleging that the earlier judicial direction had not been complied with.
The representation seeks registration, recognition, supervision and monitoring of institutions providing secular education or religious instruction to children up to the age of 14. The petitioner has invoked constitutional provisions including Article 21A, which concerns the right to education, along with Articles 39(f), 45 and 51-A(k).
The petition also raises broader constitutional questions concerning the rights of minority educational institutions under Article 30. Upadhyay has argued that Article 30 should not be interpreted as providing additional rights beyond those available under Article 19(1)(g), and has challenged the applicability of Article 30 to institutions primarily imparting religious instruction.
According to the petitioner’s position, institutions imparting religious instruction for promoting a particular religion should instead be considered in the context of Article 26(a), which concerns the rights of religious denominations to manage their religious affairs. These are arguments advanced by the petitioner and have not been finally adjudicated by the Supreme Court in the present contempt proceedings.
The petitioner has also alleged that thousands of unregistered institutions operate without adequate State supervision and has raised concerns about the possible influence of religious instruction on young children. He has characterised the issue as involving children’s welfare as well as broader concerns relating to fraternity, unity, national integration and internal security. These allegations remain claims made in the petition and have not been judicially established by the Court.
The case therefore involves two distinct questions. The immediate issue before the Supreme Court is whether the earlier direction to consider and decide the representation was complied with. Separately, the underlying representation raises substantive constitutional questions about regulation of educational institutions, children’s educational rights, religious instruction and the scope of minority educational rights.
Importantly, the latest order does not itself direct the Union Government to regulate religious educational institutions, nor does it decide the petitioner’s constitutional arguments concerning Article 30. The Court has presently only initiated contempt proceedings by issuing notice and seeking the Education Secretary’s response.
The matter is now expected to return before the Supreme Court after four weeks. The Education Ministry’s response to the allegations of non-compliance will be significant in determining the next procedural step in the contempt proceedings.
