'Can't Get Into This': Delhi High Court On Plea To Include Chapter On 'Dharma' And 'Religion' In School Syllabus

The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed the Union Government to treat as representation a PIL seeking to distinguish between “Dharma” and “Religion” and to include a chapter on the subject in the curriculum of primary and secondary schools.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice designate, Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the Union Ministries of Culture and Education to decide the plea in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

The PIL was moved by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.

“Courts do not act as theological or philosophical authorities. There is a slight mistake over here. You are mistaking us to be an expert on international banking transactions and philosophers and theological experts. We are no one to get into all this…. I don't know why these petitions are coming to this court. We have nothing to do with this,” the court told Upadhyay.

It further remarked that the Court cannot get into the issue as the same can only be decided by the Central Government.

“The Ministry will decide this. We are not getting into all this.…. You want some chapter in the school curriculum. We don't decide school curriculum. If we start inserting chapters in school curriculum then I think thats the end of the matter,” the bench said.

The court observed that Upadhyay was essentially expecting the Court to carry out an exercise in semantics and assume the role of a theological and a philosophical authority to determine the difference between dharma and, which is well beyond its constitutional mandate.

“The language, its usage and meaning are products of an organic evolution of society, and they cannot be dictated by courts, except when the same is obscene or contrary to the spirit and letter of the law,” the court said.

It ordered: “Consequently, the present petition is directed to be treated as a representation by the Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Education and to decide it in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.”

Upadhyay sought direction on the Centre and Delhi Government to include the subject in the school curriculum to “educate the masses and control the religion-based hatred and hate speeches.”

The plea also sought a direction on the Union and Delhi Governments to use the proper meaning of religion, which according to Upadhyay is “Panth or Sampradaya” and not “Dharma” as a synonym, in government documents like birth certificate, Aadhar card, driving license, bank account, birth and death certificates etc.

“Petitioner respectfully submits that the Dharma and Religion have totally different meanings but Centre and State Government Officials and Employees not only use the term Dharma as a synonym of Religion in documents like Birth Certificate, AADHAAR Card, School Certificate, Ration Card, Driving Licence, Domicile Certificate, Death Certificate and Bank Account etc but also in their verbal and written communication,” the plea stated.

It was Upadhyay's case that Dharma is not Religion. He submits that Dharma is an “ordering principle” which is independent of one's faith or methods of worship or what is understood by the term 'religion', thus providing total freedom in the ethical norms in an “eternal journey from being to becoming.”

“Each institution of the society, each individual, almost intuitively knew where to draw the line, where to define the limit. Tolerance is, therefore, integral to 'Dharma', plurality is inherent in it. This tolerance and plurality do not find space in the concept of religion,” the plea read.

It added: “Different saintly persons born in different parts of India, in different times, speaking different languages guided people to lead Dharmic life in their own ways. Being true saints, they merely described Dharma to the best of their ability and people grasped according to their own mental capacity. No one ever forced anything on anyone. The silly concept of 'conversion' came to India from outside as Christians and Muslims arrived.”

Furthermore, Upadhyay's plea contended that the “secular Western democracies” evolved so that people could think and express freely, therefore, they got rid of “stifling clergy dictatorship.”

“The Islamic societies, on the other hand, continue to remain stifled by insane dictates of the clergy class for good reasons. The mullah has become even more powerful than Mohammad or Allah and turned the “religion of peace” into a cult of violence and terrorism. This is what happens when insane amount of “workless” petrodollars fall in unworthy hands of cocky Wahhabi/Deobandi mullahs devoid of slightest sense of morality,” the plea added.

Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1059