The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned a Petition filed by Advocate Veenayak Shah seeking direction to the respondents i.e., Union of India and Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathans to "discontinue any form of Prayer from the Morning Assembly or otherwise, in Kendraya Vidhalaya Sangathans and to promote Scientific learning among the students", for next month.A bench comprising of Justices...
The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned a Petition filed by Advocate Veenayak Shah seeking direction to the respondents i.e., Union of India and Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathans to "discontinue any form of Prayer from the Morning Assembly or otherwise, in Kendraya Vidhalaya Sangathans and to promote Scientific learning among the students", for next month.
A bench comprising of Justices Indira Banerjee, Surya Kant and M. M. Sundresh considered the writ petition filed by one Veenayak Shah in 2017.
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves appearing for the petitioner submitted that the matter is regarding a prayer being said in the school which is related to one religion. Justice Indira Banerjee sharing her own experience stated that, "The school that I used to go to, we had to stand in the assembly and say our prayers" Sr. Adv. Gonsalves also pointed out that Justice Nariman had on the previous hearing observed that the writ petition raised questions of seminal importance regarding the correct interpretation of Article 28(1) of the Constitution of India. In 2019, a bench comprising Justices Nariman and Vineet Saran
had referred the matter to a 3-judge bench.
Justice Banerjee adjourned the matter on the ground that she has taken up a lot of matters and does not have the time to take up this matter. While adjourning the matter she had also observed that the prayers are done in the schools to inculcate moral values.
An impleadment application filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind was also allowed. It sought the indulgence of the Court to consider the view of the Minority Communities including the view of the Muslim Community in the matter as the matter involves the question as to whether the prescribed common prayer stipulated in Revised Education Code is in consonance with the personal laws of minority communities. It was submitted in the application that, "Since the said common prayer is based on Hinduism, the members of the minority communities who are forced to recite the said prayer are aggrieved by the said provision."
The application also pointed out that, "Kendra Vidhalayas Sangathans is an educational institution maintained out of state funds, and mandating recitation of a common prayer which was based on any particular religion is not constitutionally permissible and is hit be Article 28 of the Constitution of India. Such a provision is also violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of India."
The petition filed through Advocate Satya Mitra stated that it seeks to ensure that scientific temperament among students is promoted instead of religious knowledge being imparted in schools which is in violation of Article 28(1) and Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
The petition had impugned Article 92 of Chapter 10 of the Revised Education Code for the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathans which had outlined the morning assembly schedule and had prescribed a common prayer to be recited during the Morning Assembly. Article 92 had further stated that all the students irrespective of their faiths will have to recite the prayer in a respective manner and they will be supervised by the teachers.
The petitioner contended that, "All the Students have to begin their day by reciting the Common Prayer also followed by silent prayer. This practice creates a lot of obstacles in developing a Scientific Temperament among the students as the whole idea of God and Religious Faith is given immense priority and the same is instilled as a thought process among the students as well. Students as a result learn to develop an inclination towards seeking Refuge from Almighty instead of developing a Practical Outcome towards the Obstacles and hurdles faced in everyday life and spirit of enquiry and reform seems to be lost somewhere."
Case Title : Veenayak Shah vs Union of India – WP(C) 1246/2017