Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Gayatri Mantra in State Schools: Moral Instruction, Not Religious Teaching

On July 8, 2026, the Chhattisgarh High Court delivered a significant ruling on the intersection of religion, morality, and public education. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad dismissed a petition challenging a state government circular that required government-funded schools to incorporate prayers, including the Gayatri Mantra, Saraswati Vandana, and several other recitations, into their daily routines. The petitioners argued that these prayers amounted to religious instruction barred by Article 28 of the Constitution. The Court disagreed, drawing a careful distinction between religious instruction and moral instruction.

The petition was filed by Abdul Salam Rizvi, a former Waqf Board chairman, along with Mahendra Chhabda and Shafique Ahmed. They contended that the circular, issued on June 12, 2026, violated the constitutional guarantee of secular education in state-funded institutions. The Court, however, found no evidence of forced participation and dismissed the petition as premature, holding that the prayers listed in the circular serve a moral rather than a religious purpose.

The Government Circular and Its Contents

The circular at the centre of this dispute was issued on June 12, 2026 by the Chhattisgarh state government. It directed all government-run schools in the state to incorporate a series of prayers and recitations into the daily schedule. These included the National Anthem, the National Song, Saraswati Vandana, Gayatri Mantra, Guru Mantra, Bhojan Mantra, and Shanti Mantra. The petitioners contended that several of these recitations are rooted in Hindu religious tradition and that mandating them in state-funded schools amounted to religious instruction prohibited under the Constitution.

The state government defended the circular on the ground that the prayers were not instruments of religious propagation but rather tools for instilling moral values, discipline, and cultural awareness among students. According to the government, the recitations form part of India's broader cultural heritage and do not amount to instruction in any particular religion.

Article 28 and the Constitutional Framework

Article 28(1) of the Constitution states that no religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of state funds. This provision reflects the framers' commitment to ensuring that public education remains secular and does not become a vehicle for religious indoctrination. The scope and application of constitutional protections in the educational context has been a recurring theme in Indian jurisprudence. For instance, the Madras HC ruling on RTI Act and schools examined the boundaries of state oversight over private educational institutions, illustrating how courts continue to define the obligations and limitations that apply to schools under different regulatory frameworks.

Article 28(3) further provides that no person attending a state-recognized or state-aided institution shall be required to take part in any religious instruction or attend any religious worship conducted in such institution without the consent of that person or, in the case of a minor, without the consent of the guardian. The petitioners relied heavily on these provisions, arguing that the circular effectively mandated participation in Hindu religious practices, thereby violating the constitutional guarantee of secular education. The question before the Court, therefore, was whether the listed prayers constitute "religious instruction" within the meaning of Article 28 or whether they fall into a separate category of moral and cultural guidance.

The Court's Reasoning: Moral vs. Religious Instruction

Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad's reasoning turned on the distinction between "religious instruction" and "moral instruction." The Court held that Article 28 bars religious instruction in state-funded schools but does not prohibit moral instruction. According to the Court, the prayers listed in the circular, including the Gayatri Mantra, are widely regarded as vehicles for universal moral values such as gratitude, discipline, respect for knowledge, and inner peace. The Court emphasized that the recitation of these prayers does not amount to teaching the tenets of any particular religion or seeking to convert students to a specific religious faith.

This distinction between the content of a practice and its compulsory imposition is a thread that runs through several areas of constitutional law. Indian courts have consistently recognized that fundamental rights must be balanced against the state's legitimate interest in fostering civic and moral values. In a related context, the Bombay HC on fundamental right to protest underscored that constitutional protections, while robust, are not absolute and must be weighed against broader public interests. The Chhattisgarh High Court implicitly applied a similar principle in assessing whether the circular overstepped constitutional boundaries, concluding that the state's interest in moral education through cultural practices does not, by itself, violate the prohibition on religious instruction.

Dismissal as Premature and Absence of Coercion

A critical element of the Court's decision was its finding that the petition was premature. The Court noted that the petitioners had not placed any material on record to demonstrate that students were being forced to participate in the recitations against their will or the will of their guardians. In the absence of evidence of coercion, the Court held that the constitutional challenge was not ripe for adjudication. This emphasis on evidentiary grounding before judicial intervention echoes the approach seen in cases such as the Telangana HC on Article 21 privacy rights, where the Court required concrete evidence of rights violations before extending constitutional remedies. In both instances, the judiciary signalled that abstract or hypothetical grievances, without demonstrable harm, are insufficient to sustain a constitutional challenge.

The Court observed that the circular, on its face, did not contain any directive compelling participation, nor did it prescribe penalties for non-compliance. Without proof that the circular was being implemented in a coercive manner, the Court declined to engage with the substantive constitutional questions in full. This approach leaves the door open for future challenges if evidence of forced participation emerges, but for now, the circular stands as a valid exercise of state authority over the educational curriculum.

Related Reading

● Supreme Court on election disclosure

● Allahabad HC on constitutional reservation

Key Takeaways

The Chhattisgarh High Court has drawn a clear line between religious instruction, which is constitutionally prohibited in state-funded schools under Article 28, and moral instruction, which the Court considers permissible. Under this framework, prayers such as the Gayatri Mantra may be included in school routines as long as they are treated as instruments of moral development rather than tools for religious teaching or indoctrination.

The dismissal of the petition as premature signals that courts will require concrete evidence of coercion or forced participation before intervening in challenges to government circulars of this nature. Petitioners who wish to challenge similar directives in the future will need to demonstrate actual harm or compulsion on the ground, not merely the theoretical possibility of constitutional overreach.

The ruling does not foreclose the possibility of a fresh constitutional challenge. If evidence emerges that students or guardians are being compelled to participate in recitations against their wishes, the question of whether the circular violates Articles 28 and 25 of the Constitution may be revisited by the courts with a fuller evidentiary record.

This decision adds to the growing body of jurisprudence on the relationship between religion, culture, and public education in India. It reflects a judicial willingness to permit cultural practices in schools, provided they do not cross the line into sectarian religious instruction and no element of compulsion is present. For educators and policymakers, the ruling offers clarity on what the Constitution permits, while serving as a reminder that the absence of coercion remains the critical safeguard.