Chhattisgarh High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Saraswati Vandana and Gayatri Mantra in Government Schools as Premature
The Bilaspur court found no coercive direction on the face of the impugned order and no material showing actual injury to any student's fundamental rights.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur on 2 July 2026 dismissed a writ petition challenging a State School Education Department circular that directs students in all government schools to recite the Saraswati Vandana, Gayatri Mantra, Guru Mantra, Shanti Mantra, Deep Mantra, Bhojan Mantra, and related verses during daily assembly, beginning with the academic session 2026–27. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, sitting singly, held the petition entirely premature because the petitioners had placed no material on record demonstrating any actual injury to an individual student's freedom of conscience or religion. Liberty was reserved to approach the court afresh, with cogent material, if a concrete grievance arose in the future.
The Circular and What It Directed
The impugned direction was issued on 12 June 2026 by the Additional Secretary, School Education Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, bearing office number GENCOR-35010/1981/2026-SCHOOL EDUCATION SECTION. It prescribed a structured daily routine across all schools run by the department.
At the start of the school day, students were to recite the National Anthem, National Song, Deep Mantra, Saraswati Vandana, and Guru Mantra, along with accounts of the lives of great personalities. At the mid-day meal, students were to recite the Bhojan Mantra. At dismissal, they were to recite the Rajya Geet, Gayatri Mantra, and Shanti Mantra.
The circular applied to all schools under the School Education Department for the academic session 2026–27 onwards.
The Petitioners and Their Constitutional Challenge
The petition was filed by three individuals: Abdul Salam Rizvi, a former Chairman of the Waqf Board; Mahendra Chhabda, a former Chairman of the Minority Department; and Shafique Ahmed, Bilaspur District President of the Tahaffuz-e-Namoos-e-Risalat Action Trust. They were represented by Dr. Aamir Khan, Advocate.
Their constitutional challenge spanned several provisions. They argued that the circular violated Article 14 (equality before law), Article 21 (personal liberty, which they said includes freedom from State-compelled religious participation), Article 25 (freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion), Article 28(1) (prohibition on religious instruction in wholly State-funded educational institutions), and Articles 29 and 30 (cultural and educational rights of minority communities).
The core grievance was that students from minority communities would be compelled either to recite prayers belonging to a faith not their own or face exclusion and social stigmatisation. Counsel submitted that the Saraswati Vandana, Gayatri Mantra, Guru Mantra, and Shanti Mantra are associated with a particular religion and are not practised by other faiths. He argued that such forced State action was impermissible in a democratic country.
The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 12 June 2026, a declaration that compulsory recitation of the specified prayers in State-funded schools is unconstitutional, a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from enforcing the order, and an interim stay during the pendency of the petition.
The State's Defence: NEP 2020, Article 51A, and No Coercion
Mr. Anand Dadariya, Deputy Advocate General, appeared for Respondents 1 to 4 (the State of Chhattisgarh, the Principal Secretary, the Deputy Secretary of School Education, and the Director of Public Instructions). Mr. Anadi Sharma, Advocate, appeared for Respondent No. 5 (the Managing Director, State Project Office, Samagra Shiksha).
The State raised a preliminary objection on locus standi, contending that no individual rights of the petitioners had been infringed and that they were complete strangers to the cause of action. The State further argued that the challenge was premature and rested on speculative apprehensions rather than any concrete injury.
On the merits, the State contended that the circular was aligned with the National Education Policy, 2020, which mandates integration of Indian Knowledge Systems to foster cultural awareness. It argued that the State had merely operationalised these national pedagogical goals within its executive domain under Article 162 of the Constitution.
The State also relied on Article 51A of the Constitution, specifically the Fundamental Duty to value and preserve the rich heritage of India's composite culture. It submitted that the Shanti Mantra and Bhojan Mantra were not based on religious scriptures but were timeless expressions of India's civilisational values, environmental awareness, and universal humanism.
Crucially, the State submitted that the terms “compulsory” and “ensure” in the circular relate strictly to internal school administration and do not entail religious coercion. It stated that the order prescribed no negative consequences, punishment, or disciplinary action against any student who chose not to recite the verses. The State also submitted that since the circular was issued, it had not received a single complaint or objection from any student, parent, or teacher.
In support of its position, the State placed before the court the verbatim Sanskrit text, Hindi translations, and stated pedagogical significance of each of the seven invocations. It described the Deep Mantra as targeting mental readiness, the Saraswati Vandana as inspiring students to overcome mental lethargy and respect learning, the Guru Mantra as institutionalising teacher–student decorum, the Bhojan Mantra as fostering social harmony during the mid-day meal, the Gayatri Mantra as a cognitive exercise aimed at sharpening intellect, the Shanti Mantra as a secular ecological prayer, and the Kalyan Mantra as cultivating fraternity and altruism. The State argued that a cumulative reading of all seven invocations demonstrated that none contained religious dogma, denominational propaganda, or sectarian rituals.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad examined the impugned order dated 12 June 2026 carefully and found that it did not contain any mandatory or coercive direction compelling students to act contrary to their religious beliefs, conscience, or faith. Reading the contents of the order as a whole, the court found no express requirement obligating students to participate in any activity that would interfere with their constitutionally protected freedom of religion or freedom of conscience.
The court also addressed the scope of Article 28(1). It held that the expression “religious instruction” in that provision has a restricted meaning: it prohibits the teaching of religious customs, rituals, practices, and modes of worship in State-funded institutions. However, a plain reading of Article 28(1) makes it clear that the provision does not ban moral instruction disassociated from denominational doctrines, which remains an essential part of training in citizenship, maintenance of law and order, and growth of social cohesion.
The court found that the petitioners had completely failed to place any relevant material on record to show a violation of fundamental rights, as no individual or direct injury had been demonstrated. The petition was therefore found to be entirely premature, based on mere apprehension rather than any actual grievance.
Order
The writ petition was dismissed as premature. The court did not grant any of the reliefs sought, including the interim stay. However, liberty was reserved in favour of the petitioners to approach the court afresh by way of an appropriate petition, supported by cogent and relevant material, if any exigency arises in the future.