Ms. Aruna Roy and Others v Union of India and Others (2002)

The case of Ms. Aruna Roy and Others v Union of India and Others (2002) is a landmark judgement that addresses the constitutional principle of secularism, which is a fundamental feature of the Indian Constitution. The case primarily dealt with the issue of whether the inclusion of religious instruction within the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE), introduced by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), was a violation of the Constitution’s secular mandate. 

Delivered by a single judge, Justice MB Shah, the case is significant not only in terms of its constitutional interpretation but also because it highlights the need to balance religious education and the principle of secularism in a pluralistic society like India.

In this case, Aruna Roy, a well-known social activist, and others filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the NCFSE, arguing that it violated the constitutional provisions related to secularism. The Court’s judgement has had a lasting impact on how educational policies in India are framed, especially in relation to religious content in school curricula.

Facts of Ms. Aruna Roy and Others v Union of India and Others

The issue before the Court arose from the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE) introduced by NCERT. The petitioners, led by Aruna Roy, argued that the inclusion of religious and moral education in the NCFSE was inconsistent with the principles of secularism enshrined in the Constitution. They contended that religious instruction, especially in state-funded institutions, violated the prohibition laid down by Article 28 of the Indian Constitution.

The petitioners also alleged that the NCFSE had been formulated without proper consultation with the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE), which was a customary practice before any such curriculum changes. The petitioners further argued that imparting education on religion in the way the NCFSE prescribed would not only violate Article 28 but also threaten the secular fabric of Indian society, a principle considered part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Key Issues in Ms. Aruna Roy and Others v Union of India and Others Case

The case raised several important legal questions regarding the interpretation of secularism and the right to education under the Indian Constitution. Two primary issues were examined by the Court:

Issue 1: Non-consultation with CABE

Whether the NCFSE could be implemented without the approval or consultation of the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE), which had historically been consulted in the framing of such educational policies.

Issue 2: Violation of Secularism

Whether the inclusion of religious and moral education in the NCFSE violated the secular nature of the Indian Constitution, particularly Articles 27 and 28, which relate to religious instruction in educational institutions.

Judicial Observations and Reasoning in Ms. Aruna Roy and Others v Union of India and Others

Issue 1: Non-consultation with CABE

The Court first addressed the issue of non-consultation with the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE). The petitioners argued that CABE had always been consulted in the past, and its non-consultation in this case was a serious flaw that rendered the NCFSE invalid. However, the Court made a critical observation here. It noted that CABE, while playing an important advisory role, is not a statutory body. This means that CABE does not have a binding legal obligation to be consulted in the framing of educational policies.

While acknowledging the importance of CABE in coordinating between the Centre and the States in implementing educational reforms, the Court concluded that its non-consultation in this case was not a sufficient reason to invalidate the NCFSE. The Court observed that NCERT, an independent body, was fully within its rights to frame the NCFSE without mandatory consultation with CABE. As a result, the Court held that the non-consultation with CABE did not render the NCFSE unconstitutional or illegal.

Issue 2: Secular Nature of the NCFSE

The second major issue that the Court addressed was whether the inclusion of religious and moral education in the NCFSE violated the secular character of the Indian Constitution. This issue is central to the case, as it touches upon the delicate balance between the right to education, the need for moral values, and the preservation of secularism.

The petitioners argued that the NCFSE’s inclusion of religious content could potentially promote religious dogma, which would be inconsistent with the constitutional mandate of secularism. They believed that teaching about religions in schools would be divisive and undermine the secular principles that India is built upon.

In its judgement, the Court first rejected the argument that knowledge of different religions inherently leads to disharmony. On the contrary, the Court stated that understanding different religious philosophies was essential for communal harmony. Ignorance of other religions breeds hatred and wrong notions, while knowledge can foster mutual respect and understanding.

The Court also emphasised the importance of moral values in a secular society. It observed that without moral values, neither a secular society nor a democracy could survive. In this context, the Court reiterated that the NCFSE’s objective was not to promote any specific religion but to provide a value-based education that promotes ethical principles and mutual respect. It further held that the study of religious philosophies was not the same as imparting religious instruction or performing religious worship, both of which are prohibited under Article 28 of the Constitution.

Regarding Article 28, which prohibits religious instruction in educational institutions funded wholly by the state, the Court clarified that the Article was concerned with the prohibition of religious worship or instruction that promotes a particular religion. It did not, however, preclude the academic study of religious philosophy and culture, especially when such study was designed to foster understanding and respect for different beliefs. The Court held that the NCFSE’s inclusion of religious education was in line with the spirit of secularism and did not violate the Constitution.

The Court also referred to Article 51A(e), which directs the promotion of harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood among citizens. The NCFSE, by including a study of different religious philosophies and promoting common values, was in accordance with this constitutional mandate.

In conclusion, the Court held that the NCFSE was not violative of the Constitution. It emphasised that secularism does not demand the exclusion of all religious content from education but rather requires that such content be imparted in a manner that promotes understanding, tolerance, and ethical values, without favouring any particular religion.

The Court’s Conclusion in Ms. Aruna Roy and Others v Union of India and Others

The Court, in Ms. Aruna Roy and Others v Union of India and Others, upheld the validity of the NCFSE and dismissed the petitioners’ claims. The judgement clarified that the inclusion of moral and religious education, as long as it was value-based and promoted universal ethical principles, did not violate the secular nature of the Constitution. It reaffirmed that secularism is not about the absence of religion in education but about ensuring that religious instruction does not promote any particular religion or religious dogma.

The Court concluded that the NCFSE, in its current form, did not threaten the secular fabric of Indian society. Instead, it aimed to foster communal harmony and moral values, which are crucial for the survival of a democratic, pluralistic society.

Conclusion

Ms. Aruna Roy and Others v Union of India and Others (2002) is a significant case that has shaped the discourse on secularism in India’s educational system. The Court’s ruling in favour of the NCFSE upheld the inclusion of religious and moral education as long as it adhered to secular principles and promoted universal ethical values. The judgement reinforced the idea that secularism does not mean the absence of religion but the promotion of understanding and tolerance among diverse religious communities.