New Delhi, Sep 15 (IANS): The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice in contempt proceedings against the Secretary of the Union Education Ministry over alleged non-compliance with its direction to take a decision on a representation seeking registration, recognition, regulation, and monitoring of institutions imparting secular or religious education to children below the age of 14 years.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu sought a response from the official, T.K. Anil Kumar of the IAS, on the contempt petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, alleging that the Centre failed to comply with the apex court’s direction within the stipulated period.
The apex court’s proceedings arise from its May 11 order in which it had disposed of Upadhyay’s writ petition after taking note of his representation dated February 10, 2026, before the Union Education Ministry.
The top court had directed the Centre to take a decision on the representation within the stipulated period, after declining to entertain the writ petition at that stage and asking the petitioner to await the outcome of the representation.
In the contempt petition, Upadhyay alleged that despite the specific direction of the Supreme Court, the contemnor did not take any decision on his representation.
The petitioner had sought directions to the Centre and state governments to register, recognise, supervise and monitor all institutions imparting secular education and/or religious instruction to children up to the age of 14 years.
He has also sought declarations concerning the scope of Article 30(1) of the Constitution, including that it is a specific reiteration of Article 19(1)(g), and that institutions imparting religious instruction fall under Article 26.
In his contempt petition, Upadhyay claimed that he had visited several bordering districts of Uttar Pradesh in January and found a number of non-registered and non-recognised institutions. He alleged that there was a “massive mushrooming” of non-registered and non-recognised institutions in bordering districts of the country and claimed that children were being affected by the absence of registration, recognition, supervision, and monitoring.
The petition also referred to Article 21A of the Constitution and relied upon the Supreme Court’s observations in the State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder judgment, contending that equal quality education for children could not be ensured without proper registration, recognition, supervision and monitoring of educational institutions.
The issue had earlier come before the apex court in another PIL filed by Upadhyay.
In August, the Supreme Court dismissed as withdrawn his third petition on the same issue, making it clear that it would not entertain successive petitions after earlier proceedings concerning the same cause.
The top court had stated that an earlier writ petition filed by Upadhyay had been disposed of by granting him liberty to approach the competent authority, while another petition was dismissed with the observation that he should await a decision on his representation. The contempt proceedings will now be considered by the Supreme Court on October 16.
