The Supreme Court has issued a notice to T K Anil Kumar, the Union Education Secretary, following a contempt petition that alleged non-compliance with a previous court directive. This matter was reviewed by a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, who requested a formal response from the Secretary within four weeks. The petition was presented by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, citing inaction in addressing a representation related to the regulation and monitoring of educational institutions that offer secular education or religious instruction to children under the age of 14.

According to the court’s directives, the Education Secretary is not required to appear personally during the next hearing. The decision alleviates the burden on the official while still ensuring accountability in the matter.

Background of the Supreme Court’s Involvement

The current case arose from an earlier Supreme Court directive dated May 11, instructing Upadhyay to submit a formal representation to the Union government regarding his requests. The petition alleges that this representation called for mechanisms to register, recognise, supervise, and monitor institutions providing education and religious instruction to minors up to 14 years old. Following the delay in the government’s response, Upadhyay sought the court’s intervention through the contempt petition, asserting that the necessary decisions had not been actioned within the stipulated timeframe.

During the hearing on the contempt plea, the bench clarified its focus, stating it would primarily determine whether its previous order had been adhered to. The bench opted not to delve into constitutional questions during these proceedings, maintaining a narrow scope of review.

Objectives of the Contempt Petition

The original petition raises significant concerns about the regulation of educational institutions catering to children below the age of 14. In particular, it targets institutions operating outside the conventional education framework, requesting that both secular and religious teaching entities be subject to regulation, registration, and oversight. The petition invokes various constitutional provisions, including Article 21A, which relates to the right to education, and Articles 39(f), 45, and 51-A(k).

Furthermore, Upadhyay challenges the interpretation of Article 30, asserting that minority educational institutions should not possess rights exceeding those outlined in Article 19(1)(g). This element of the petition highlights ongoing debates about the boundaries of rights and responsibilities concerning educational entities.

Concerns Over Unregulated Educational Institutions

The petitioner has expressed grave concerns regarding the proliferation of unregistered and unrecognised educational institutions, particularly in districts near the Uttar Pradesh border. Upadhyay claims to have observed a notable increase in such institutions, which are allegedly operating without stringent regulatory oversight. He emphasises that children are particularly vulnerable due to their age, raising the point that the state bears a heightened responsibility to safeguard their educational rights and general welfare.

The Supreme Court’s request for a response from the Education Secretary signals the judiciary’s intent to ensure accountability in governance related to children’s education. The matter is scheduled for further consideration in four weeks, at which point the court will evaluate compliance with its earlier directives.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share