Chhattisgarh HC dismisses plea against Saraswati Vandana prayer directive, says order not coercive

Bilaspur, Jul 8 (PTI) The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a petition against the state’s directive introducing the recitation of Saraswati Vandana and Gayatri Mantra in government schools, noting the order contains no mandatory or coercive direction compelling students to act against their faith. A single bench of Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, in the judgment on July 2, termed the petition premature. The judgment was uploaded on the HC's website on Tuesday. The petition, filed by three persons, challenged a June 12 circular issued by the state's School Education Department directing all schools under it to conduct a series of daily cultural, educational and value-based activities from the 2026-27 academic session. The circular directed the recitation of the national anthem, national song, deep mantra, Saraswati Vandana, Guru Mantra, Shanti Mantra and accounts of the lives of great personalities during the morning assembly, and the state song, Gayatri Mantra and Shanti Mantra at the close of the school day. The petitioners claimed the directive violated Articles 14, 21, 25, 28(1), 29 and 30 of the Constitution, arguing that students from minority communities could feel compelled to participate in religious practices not belonging to their faith. Aamir Khan, counsel for the petitioners, submitted in the HC that educational institutions wholly funded by the state cannot enforce prayers associated with a particular religion, as doing so would be contrary to the constitutional principle of secularism. The petitioners asserted that the chanting of Saraswati Vandana, Gayatri Mantra, Guru Mantra and Shanti Mantra amounts to imparting religious instructions and promoting a particular religion in government schools, which is constitutionally barred. Khan argued that compelling students to recite such mantras would infringe upon their freedom of conscience and religion, forcing them either to act against their beliefs or forego their education. Opposing the plea, Deputy Advocate General Anand Dadariya argued that the petition was politically motivated and based on speculative apprehensions rather than any concrete injury. He submitted that the June 12 circular was in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and sought to promote Indian knowledge systems and cultural awareness. The state government has merely operationalised these national pedagogical goals within its valid executive domain under Article 162 of the Constitution. Such policy measures cannot be labelled as unconstitutional or communal, he said. The state also informed the court that the policy had already been implemented across government schools without any complaint from students, parents or teachers. Dadariya argued that the expressions "compulsory" and "ensure" used in the circular related only to school administration and discipline and did not impose any religious coercion. He said there was no provision for punishment or disciplinary action against students choosing not to recite the prescribed verses. The state further contended that traditional verses, like the Shanti Mantra and Bhojan Mantra, are ancient Indian philosophies that promote universal well-being, ecological balance and gratitude. They are open universally to all students in government schools across the state, and no student is required to change or abandon their own religious faith to participate in these assembly routines. The order is fully supported by the constitutional mandate of Article 51A, which prescribes the fundamental duties of every citizen, Dadariya said. After hearing both sides, the HC observed that a careful reading of the June 12 order did not disclose any mandatory or coercive direction requiring students to act contrary to their religious beliefs, conscience or faith. "The contents of the impugned order, read as a whole, do not disclose any express requirement obligating students to participate in any activity that would interfere with their constitutionally protected freedom of religion or freedom of conscience," the court said. It also noted that the petitioners have failed to place any material on record demonstrating violation of any fundamental rights, as no individual or direct injury has been shown. Holding that the plea was based on mere apprehensions and not on any actual grievance, the court dismissed the writ petition as premature. It, however, granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the court afresh with an appropriate petition supported by cogent material if any such situation arises in future. PTI COR TKP GK