Faith, Freedom, and Education: The Heartfelt Story Behind Aruna Roy v Union of India

Religious Instructions (Prohibited under article 28) Or Education About religion

Facts of the Case

• A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Aruna Roy and others, challenging the National Curriculum Framework for School Education 2000 (NCFSE) introduced by the NCERT.
• The petitioners argued:
  1. The NCFSE was implemented without consultation with the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE), a body historically involved in educational policy since 1935.
  2. The curriculum included religious and moral education, allegedly violating secularism (a basic structure of the Constitution) and Articles 27-28, which prohibit religious instruction in state-funded institutions.

Legal Issues

1. Mandatory Consultation with CABE
   • Whether CABE’s approval was legally required for implementing the NCFSE, given its historical advisory role but non-statutory status.
2. Constitutionality of Religious Content
   • Whether teaching about religions (as opposed to religious instruction) in the NCFSE violated secularism under the Constitution.

Judgement and Reasoning

1. Non-Consultation with CABE

• The Supreme Court held that CABE is not a statutory body and thus consultation was not legally mandatory. While CABE had historically advised on education policy, its role was advisory and non-binding. The absence of consultation did not invalidate the NCFSE.
• Key Statutory Interpretation:
  • The court emphasized that NCERT, as an autonomous body, had the authority to frame the curriculum without statutory obligations to consult CABE.

2. Secularism and Religious Education

• The court distinguished between religious instruction (prohibited under Article 28) and education about religions. It ruled that teaching comparative philosophies of religions promotes communal harmony and aligns with secularism.
• Observing that “ignorance breeds hatred,” the court upheld the NCFSE’s content, stating it aimed to foster moral values and understanding of diverse beliefs.

Conclusion

The judgement reinforced the non-binding nature of advisory bodies like CABE in policy-making and clarified the constitutional scope of secularism. By interpreting statutory and constitutional provisions narrowly, the court balanced educational autonomy with the principle of secularism, allowing curricula to include objective religious studies without endorsing specific faiths

If incase you need any legal assistance you can now try our AI Legal Advisor.