The Supreme Court has initiated contempt proceedings against Union Education Secretary T.K. Anil Kumar over allegations that the Centre failed to comply with its earlier direction concerning a representation seeking regulatory oversight of institutions imparting religious education to children below the age of 14.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu issued notice on a contempt petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who alleged that his representation seeking registration, recognition and monitoring of such institutions had not been acted upon by the Ministry of Education.
The Court, however, dispensed with the personal appearance of the Education Secretary and directed that the matter be listed after four weeks.
The contempt proceedings stem from an earlier round of litigation in which Upadhyay had approached the Supreme Court seeking a regulatory framework for institutions providing secular education as well as religious instruction to children below 14 years of age.
In May 2026, the Supreme Court had declined to directly entertain the substantive plea and directed the petitioner to await the decision of the competent executive authority on his representation to the Ministry of Education. The representation was submitted on February 10, 2026.
According to the present contempt petition, the petitioner subsequently alleged that despite the Court’s direction, the Education Secretary had failed to take a decision on the representation, prompting him to invoke the Court’s contempt jurisdiction.
Upadhyay’s original representation sought compulsory registration, recognition, supervision and monitoring of institutions imparting religious instruction to children below the age of 14. The plea raised concerns regarding institutions allegedly functioning without adequate governmental oversight and argued that the absence of regulatory supervision could have implications for children’s education, welfare and constitutional rights.
The petitioner has alleged that a large number of unregistered institutions were operating without effective State monitoring and contended that young children could be vulnerable to ideological indoctrination in the absence of appropriate safeguards.
The plea has also raised broader questions concerning the constitutional classification of institutions imparting religious instruction and the extent to which such institutions can claim protection under Article 30 of the Constitution, which guarantees minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
A significant constitutional issue raised by Upadhyay concerns the interplay between Articles 19(1)(g), 26 and 30.
The petitioner has argued that Article 30 should not be construed as conferring an unrestricted constitutional protection upon institutions whose principal function is to impart religious instruction. His case is that institutions engaged in promoting or disseminating religious instruction ought instead to fall within the constitutional framework governing religious and charitable institutions under Article 26.
The representation further contends that the expression “educational institutions of their choice” under Article 30 should be understood as referring to secular or professional educational institutions and not institutions principally established for imparting religious instruction.
The dispute therefore extends beyond the question of administrative compliance and touches upon larger constitutional questions concerning minority educational rights, religious freedom, State regulation and the protection of children.
The Supreme Court’s latest order does not adjudicate upon these substantive constitutional claims. At this stage, the Court is examining the allegation that its earlier direction concerning consideration of the petitioner’s representation was not complied with.
The matter will now come up after four weeks for further consideration.
The post Supreme Court issues contempt notice to Education Secretary over Regulation of Religious education institutions appeared first on India Legal.