The Supreme Court has sought a response from Union School Education Secretary T.K. Anil Kumar on a contempt petition alleging government inaction on a plea to regulate all institutions offering academic or religious instruction to children under the age of 14.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu issued notice on Tuesday, directing the senior bureaucrat to file a reply within four weeks.
The order was passed on a contempt plea filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay through advocate Ashwani Dubey. The petitioner contended that the education secretary failed to act on a formal representation submitted following an earlier directive from the top court on May 11, which had asked Upadhyay to approach the Union government with his grievances.
Contempt Petition Cites Inaction On Regulation Plea
The original public interest litigation filed under Article 32 sought judicial directions compelling authorities to register, recognise, supervise, and monitor every facility imparting secular education or religious instruction to minors aged up to 14 years. The plea framed these regulatory demands under the constitutional framework of Article 21A, read alongside Articles 39, 45, and 51-A.
The petition also argued that Article 30 does not grant minorities any distinct or additional protections, benefits, or privileges beyond those already guaranteed under Article 19. According to the plea, Article 30 operates merely as a specific reiteration of the rights available to all citizens under Article 19.
National Security And Border Area Concerns
Emphasising the state’s heightened duty of care, the petitioner submitted that children are impressionable, naive, and central to the country’s development. Upadhyay warned that the lack of oversight poses national security implications, arguing that young individuals could be vulnerable to manipulation or indoctrination in unmonitored facilities.
The plea further highlighted personal visits undertaken by Upadhyay to various districts along the Uttar Pradesh border, claiming that several unrecognised and unregistered institutions were operating in the area. Upadhyay maintained that such non-compliant facilities are multiplying across India’s border belts without any adequate administrative monitoring or regulatory checks.
