Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the state government’s circular introducing a series of prayers, mantras, patriotic songs and value-based activities in government schools, ruling that the policy does not compel students to participate in practices contrary to their religious beliefs. However, the court clarified that its decision does not prevent future legal challenges if any evidence of coercion or violation of constitutional rights emerges during implementation.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad dismissed a petition challenging the state government’s June 12, 2026 circular, observing that the case was “premature” as it was based on apprehensions rather than any demonstrated infringement of fundamental rights.
The circular, issued by the Chhattisgarh School Education Department for the 2026-27 academic session, directs government-run schools to begin the day with the National Anthem, National Song, Deep Mantra, Saraswati Vandana, Guru Mantra, Shanti Mantra and brief accounts of the lives of eminent personalities or “Mahapurushas.” At the conclusion of the school day, students are expected to recite the Rajya Geet, Gayatri Mantra and Shanti Mantra.
The petitioners had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking the cancellation of the circular and a declaration that compulsory recitation of the listed prayers and mantras in state-funded schools would be unconstitutional. The petition was filed by a former chairman of the Chhattisgarh State Waqf Board, a former minister handling minority affairs and the district president of a religious action trust.
Represented by advocate Dr. Aamir Khan, the petitioners argued that the inclusion of Saraswati Vandana, Gayatri Mantra, Guru Mantra and Shanti Mantra amounted to religious instruction in educational institutions wholly funded by the state, which they claimed violated Article 28(1) of the Constitution. They further contended that the circular infringed Articles 14, 21, 25, 29 and 30 by potentially compelling students from minority communities to participate in religious practices associated with a faith other than their own.
According to the petitioners, India’s constitutional commitment to secularism prohibits government educational institutions from directing students to follow or participate in the customs or rituals of any particular religion. They argued that even if participation was not explicitly mandated, the school environment could create indirect pressure on students from minority communities.
After examining the contents of the circular, the High Court concluded that it did not contain any mandatory or coercive provisions requiring students to act against their faith or conscience. The court observed that a careful reading of the government’s order revealed no explicit direction compelling participation in activities contrary to students’ religious beliefs.
Justice Prasad further clarified the constitutional scope of Article 28(1), noting that while the provision prohibits religious instruction in educational institutions fully maintained by the state, it does not bar moral instruction or value-based education that is independent of denominational religious teachings.
The court observed that moral education aimed at promoting citizenship, discipline, social harmony and respect for constitutional values cannot automatically be classified as religious instruction merely because certain teachings have their roots in India’s ancient traditions. It emphasized that such instruction, when detached from sectarian doctrines, remains consistent with constitutional principles.
Appearing for the Chhattisgarh government, Deputy Advocate General Anand Dadariya argued that the petition was founded solely on assumptions rather than any actual instance of discrimination or coercion. The state maintained that the initiative was designed to promote discipline, cultural awareness, concentration, ethical values and appreciation of India’s knowledge traditions in line with the objectives of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The government further submitted that traditional invocations such as the Shanti Mantra convey universal messages of peace, gratitude towards nature and collective well-being rather than promoting any specific religious doctrine. It also assured the court that students choosing not to participate in the recitations would not face punishment, disciplinary action or any adverse consequences.
State authorities informed the court that the circular had already been implemented across government schools and that no complaints of coercion, discrimination or violation of students’ rights had been received from parents or students.
Accepting these submissions, the High Court held that the challenge lacked a concrete factual basis and was based only on anticipated constitutional violations. Consequently, it declined to interfere with the government’s policy at this stage.
At the same time, the court left the door open for future judicial scrutiny. It clarified that if any instance of coercion, discrimination or infringement of fundamental rights comes to light during the implementation of the circular, affected individuals would remain free to approach the courts for appropriate legal remedies.
With the dismissal of the petition, the Chhattisgarh government’s school prayer policy will continue to remain in force in government-run schools across the state, while its implementation may still be subject to judicial review if constitutional concerns arise in the future.
