The Supreme Court on Monday declined to immediately intervene in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking mandatory registration and monitoring of all institutions imparting secular or religious education to children under the age of 14. A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to instead approach the Central Government with his representation.
The court emphasized the role of the executive branch in such matters, noting that judicial intervention should not “jump the gun” before the government has had an opportunity to review the issue.
The PIL, filed by Advocate Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay through Advocate Ashwani Dubey, raised concerns regarding the proliferation of unregistered institutions, particularly in border districts. Upadhyay argued that the lack of oversight poses a significant risk to national security, asserting that children of a “tender age” are susceptible to manipulation or “brainwashing” in unregulated environments.
The petitioner claimed to have personally visited several districts along the Uttar Pradesh border, where he allegedly found numerous unrecognized institutions operating without any effective regulatory mechanism or state oversight.
A central legal point in the petition was the interpretation of Article 30 of the Constitution, which deals with the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. The plea sought a declaration that Article 30 does not confer any “additional rights, benefits, or privileges” beyond the rights guaranteed to all citizens under Article 19(1)(g) (the right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business).
The petition urged the court to direct the State to register and supervise these institutions in the spirit of:
- Article 21A: The right to free and compulsory education.
- Article 39(f): Ensuring children are given opportunities to develop in a healthy manner.
- Article 45: Provision for early childhood care and education.
- Article 51-A(k): The fundamental duty of parents to provide opportunities for education.
During the proceedings, when the petitioner continued to press for immediate judicial directions, the bench offered a cautionary perspective on the limits of judicial reach.
“You are before a bench with judges who are very conservative and traditional. We don’t jump the gun,” the bench remarked. Underscoring the importance of the separation of powers, the Justices added, “Justice is not a one-way road. The executive also has a role to play in it.”
The Supreme Court concluded the matter by directing the Union of India (Respondent No. 1) to examine the representation submitted by Upadhyay on February 4, 2026.
“We dispose of this writ petition with a direction to Respondent No 1 to look into the representation of the petitioner dated February 4, 2026, and take an appropriate decision thereon. The decision taken shall be communicated to the petitioner,” the court ordered.
