BILASPUR: In a landmark judgment addressing the intersection of state-sponsored education and religious freedom, the Chhattisgarh High Court has officially dismissed a petition challenging the state government's recent directive to introduce the daily recitation of traditional hymns, including the Saraswati Vandana and Gayatri Mantra, in government schools. Delivering the verdict, a single-judge bench presided over by Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad categorized the legal challenge as entirely premature. The ruling firmly validates a June 12 circular issued by the State's School Education Department, which sought to streamline cultural, educational, and value-based activities across all public institutions starting from the 2026-27 academic session.The court's comprehensive review concluded that the administrative order contains absolutely no mandatory or punitive clauses that force students to act against their personal conscience, religious faith, or constitutional rights, successfully defusing a highly debated civil controversy.Deconstructing the Circular: National Anthem to Shanti Mantra Included in Daily RoutineThe controversy originated from a structural policy revamp intended to standardize school assemblies. The state's executive circular mandated school administrations to systematically arrange a series of cultural and educational recitations during school hours.The daily blueprint directed the mandatory hosting of the national anthem, the national song (Vande Mataram), Deepa Mantra, Saraswati Vandana, Guru Mantra, and Shanti Mantra during the morning assembly, alongside educational presentations highlighting the lives of India's great historical personalities. Furthermore, the guidelines instructed institutions to conclude the academic day with the formal recitation of the state song, the Gayatri Mantra, and a final Shanti Mantra, prompting a group of three petitioners to approach the High Court under claims of constitutional violations.The Secularism Debate: Petitioners Claim Violation of Minority Rights and Freedom of ConscienceRepresenting the petitioners, advocate Aamir Khan presented a highly technical argument before the single bench, asserting that the circular directly infringed upon the core protections guaranteed under Articles 14, 21, 25, 28(1), 29, and 30 of the Constitution of India. Khan argued that institutions entirely funded by state resources are constitutionally prohibited from imparting religious education or promoting any singular theological practice.The petitioners contended that forcing students from diverse minority communities to chant specific Sanskrit mantras created an environment of systemic coercion. This pressure, they argued, effectively forced young students to either participate in rituals outside their faith or face academic alienation, directly undermining the secular fabric of the nation's public education framework.State Defends Policy: Alignment with NEP 2020 and Indian Knowledge SystemsMounting a robust defense on behalf of the state administration, Deputy Advocate General Anand Dadaria strongly opposed the petition, labeling it a politically motivated move built on speculative anxieties rather than any documented institutional harm. Dadaria pointed out that the educational directive functions in complete harmony with the core goals of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which actively encourages the integration of traditional Indian knowledge systems, environmental ethics, and cultural awareness into modern schooling.The state argued that the executive action was validly executed under Article 162 of the Constitution. Dadaria also placed crucial evidence before the bench showing that the assembly routine had already been successfully rolled out across thousands of schools statewide, with zero complaints or resistance reported by students, parents, or teaching staff.No Penal Provisions: High Court Rules Apprehensions Baseleess, Grants Future LibertyClarifying the administrative language of the circular, the Deputy Advocate General explained that regulatory words like "mandatory" and "ensure" were directed strictly at school principals and staff to maintain institutional discipline, not to enforce religious compliance on individual students. The state confirmed that the policy contains no provisions for disciplinary action, suspension, or grading penalties against any student who chooses to remain silent during the recitations. Dadaria further explained that ancient verses like the Shanti Mantra are universal philosophical prayers emphasizing global peace, environmental balance, and gratitude, requiring no alteration of anyone's personal faith.After evaluating the extensive arguments from both legal teams, the High Court observed that a holistic reading of the June 12 administrative order reveals zero evidence of coercive enforcement. The bench concluded that the petitioners failed to prove any real violation of fundamental rights, rendering the current challenge purely speculative. While dismissing the current lawsuit as premature, Justice Prasad provided a balanced conclusion, granting the petitioners full liberty to approach the court again with a proper petition if concrete evidence of institutional forcing or harassment emerges in the future.
