The 2002 aruna roy vs union of india case is a seminal ruling that tackled the subject of religious instruction in school curricula and the constitutional right to education in India. The case investigated whether the Constitution’s secularism provisions were infringed by religious and moral education being taught in schools.
aruna roy vs union of india Case Facts
- The matter concerns a writ suit (civil) filed against the Union of India and others by Ms. Aruna Roy and others. The petitioners contend that approval from the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) is required before the national curriculum framework for school education 2000 (NCFSE) can be implemented.
- They claim that CABE, which was established in 1935, has always been consulted before new education policies are developed and that the legitimacy of such policies depends on CABE’s agreement.
- According to the petitioners, the respondents violated established procedures for creating educational policies by failing to get CABE’s endorsement for the national curriculum framework for school education 2000. They contend that CABE’s role is heavily weighted by the constitution, especially when it comes to children’s education.
- Conversely, the respondents assert that CABE’s involvement in the NCFSE clearance procedure is not required by law. They contend that CABE’s purported inability to appropriately reconstruct since 1994 renders its backing for the NCFSE’s implementation meaningless.
- In addition, the case discusses broader concerns regarding the concepts and objectives of education, including the promotion of unity, brotherhood, and globally acknowledged ideals. These lectures emphasize how important education is for maintaining secular values, fostering social harmony, and safeguarding cultural heritage.
aruna roy vs union of india Issues
- Was it necessary for the Central Advisory Board of Education to be contacted before adopting the National Curriculum Framework for School Education, which was released by the National Council of Educational Research and Training?
- Whether the secularism principle and article 28 of the indian constitution been violated by religious education or education about religion?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The claim that approval from the Central Advisory Board of Education is necessary before the National Curriculum Framework for School Education 2000 (NCFSE) may be implemented. They contend that there is significant constitutional relevance in the historical consultation that CABE conducted before new educational policies were formed.
- The petitioner emphasizes the grave constitutional ramifications for children’s education going forward and argues that CABE approval is necessary for the legitimacy of educational initiatives like the NCFSE.
- They highlight the respondents’ denial to seek authorization from CABE for the NCFSE, contending that this violates accepted standards for educational policymaking and diminishes CABE’s power.
- The petitioner highlights CABE’s historical significance as a consultative body that represents numerous education sector stakeholders, contending that the continuation of educational policy’s inclusiveness and validity depends on its approval.
Respondent:
- The Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) authorization is not legally required in order to apply the national curriculum framework for school education 2000. They contend that carrying out educational programs does not require CABE permission.
- The respondents argue that since CABE was not reconstructed properly following its purported 1994 expiration, its ability to implement educational initiatives like the NCFSE is questionable.
- They argue that educational programs like the NCFSE are legitimate and lawful even in the absence of CABE approval, and that the non-reconstitution of CABE has no influence on this.
- The respondents underscored that the executive branch of government bears the duty for making decisions about education, and that CABE’s consultative role does not confer decision-making power over educational policies.
aruna roy vs union of india Judgment
Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari:
- While a national policy’s lack of consultation with CABE might not automatically render it unconstitutional in court, Justice Dharmadhikari believed that it was imperative to include CABE in the process of developing major national policies.
- He underlined how important it is to keep religious instruction and religious education distinct. He pointed out that the Indian Constitution was devoted to secularism and that distinguishing between these two ideas requires a thorough study of diverse religions.
- This method was necessary to avoid brainwashing kids into adhering to a particular religion and was designed to let them recognize the plurality of religions while still helping them comprehend the idea of a single, ultimate truth.
Justice M.B. Shah:
- According to Justice Shah, the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE) could not be invalidated on the grounds that CABE consultation was not conducted.
- He emphasized that CABE was not a statutory organization and that nothing in the government decisions that established CABE in 1986 and 1990 required CABE to be consulted prior to the NCFSE’s formulation.
- He pointed out that the main roles of CABE were to advise the government and help state and federal authorities work together to achieve the national education policy.
Justice H.K. Sema:
- Justice Sema emphasized that religious education may be given to kids for broad awareness, stressing that all religions shared similar underlying beliefs and that the differences lay in their practices.
- He emphasized that teaching about religion shouldn’t encourage superstitions and dogmas. It was clarified that the phrase “religious instructions,” which appears in Article 28(1), has a particular meaning and refers to the teaching of rituals and places of worship, both of which have no place in educational institutions.
- Nonetheless, this did not prevent philosophical and cultural studies of religion.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
