The old thinking of skeptics like Bertrand Russell that religious teachings in school would indoctrinate children have become a matter of the past. Equally ante-dated is the decision of the Supreme Court of America in the case of Engel vs. Vitale which in early 1960s ruled that recitation of prayers written by New York Board of Regents, even though nondenominational, was unconstitutional. The present day studies in United States prove that there is great positive relationship between education and religion. Educationists in England, France and United States are talking more and more about positive social effect of the education-religion relationship at an individual level. Surveys in United States show that religious attendance rises sharply with education across individuals although religious attendance declines sharply with education across denominations. By and large, the positive effect of the education and religion relationship is accepted without demurer.

Let me now analyse what is happening in our country which is strong in religious beliefs. Articles 25 and 28 of the Constitution of India which are part of fundamental rights of our Constitution, make it very clear that India is a secular but not an anti-religious State, for the Constitution guarantees the freedom of conscience and religion. The freedom envisaged under our Constitution also gives freedom from attendance to religious instruction or religious worship in educational institutions. The universal declaration of human rights and the European Convention of Human Rights and Freedom, treats freedom of religion as a basic tenet of human rights. The main question is, can religion be taught in a school funded out of State funds?

Article 28 of our Constitution mandates that no religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of the State funds. Would this provision under the Constitution preclude the school authorities from teaching religion in schools funded by the State?

By and large, we all know that all these years we have been teaching religion and moral science in our schools. Whilst so doing, our schools have given individual freedom of conscience to the students and have not made it compulsory to any student who indicated that he does not wish to attend any religious worship. There is no doubt of the fact that schools cannot compel anybody to have religious instructions in an educational institution. The emphasis under Article 28 is on not imparting religious instruction in a school funded by State.

Religious instruction and religious education have a contra-distinction. Whilst analyzing the said Article 28, the Courts in India have held that emphasis under Article 28 is against imparting religious instructions; but there is no prohibition in having a study of religious philosophy and culture. Is also held that teaching of Religion is necessary to have value-based social life in the society, which is degenerating with respect to power, post or property.

In another Judgement, the Supreme Court also accepted the fact that minorities regard as essential that education to their children should also be in accordance with the teachings of religion and that such education would not be obtained in the ordinary schools designed for all the members of the public, and that the same would be secured in schools conducted under the influence and guidance of people well-versed in the tenets of their religion and in traditions of their culture. Whist analysing Article 30 in respect of teaching religion, the Courts have held that Article 30 gives an inherent right to the minorities to establish religious institutions which would effectively serve the needs of their community.

Back home in our State of Maharashtra, way back in 1980s, a circular was issued by the Education Department that minority schools could teach religion and moral science. Although these were the pronouncements of law in 1980s, things have changed considerably then on. Our Principals know the problems faced by them from the Department as well as Education Inspectors in respect of teaching religion in school. At times there is harassment to the Principals in view of earmarking religion and moral science periods in the time-table.

One expected that the recent 11-Bench Judgement of the Supreme Court would decide this point of law, but besides reiterating the question as to what extent can the rights of aided private minority institutions to administer be regulated, and after setting out Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution, nothing much is decided by the Honble Supreme Court. An observation is made in the said Judgement that conducting religious worship in an educational institution which is recognised by the State or which is receiving aid of the State funds is not prohibited, and prohibition under Article 28 is only to the extent of individual freedom of conscience of those who attend such institution that is protected. In other words, an educational institution receiving aid from the State cannot compel any person to attend any religious instruction or worship. Having said so, the Honble Supreme Court in this Judgement has not in clear terms stated that religious instructions can be given in aided educational institutions although one can deduce that schools may impart religious education in such an institution.

The Supreme Court, however, in another Judgement of Aruna Roy vs. Union of India, which was a Public Interest Writ Petition filed in the Supreme Court challenging the national curriculum framework for school education published by National Council for Educational Research and Training, whilst dismissing the said challenge, stressed on the great need of knowing religion in our country and the need to impart knowledge of religion to children at a very young age. The Supreme Court has laid emphasis on the study of different religions. This Judgement stressed the need that education should aim at the multi-faceted development of a human being which entails intellectual, physical, spiritual and ethical development. The Court analysed that religion came into existence to control animal instincts in human beings and for building a civilized cultural society. It accepted that religion is the foundation for value-based survival of human beings in a civilized society which depended upon moral values. It analysed the philosophy of co-existence and how co-existence can be achieved by the process of making students acquaint themselves with basics of not only ones own religion but even other religions. Finally it held that Article 28 of the Constitution would not come in the way of imparting religious education although religious instruction would be prohibited as, according to the Learned Judges, religious education helps a child to be intellectually aware to listen to himself and discern what is real as well as to have a disinterested approach to life.

Whilst upholding that there is great value for a child to start the day at home or school with a serious thought or with a reading that has depth and significance, the Supreme Court has laid emphasis on religious education in a broad sense and has accepted that study of religion is very much necessary in our country for fostering unity and integrity of Indians and that it is only proper that religious education be given which would in fact educate people to live together in peace and love as well as tolerate each other. One finds that although the pendulum of interpretation of Article 28 swings from one side to the other, as of today fortunately for us, the importance of religious education has been accepted by a Court verdict. As adverted to earlier, the emphasis is not only on ones own religion; but a study of other religions also. One cannot study another religion unless one knows ones own thoroughly. I therefore, think that in the context of the decision of the Supreme Court whose decisions or observations are binding on all and sundry it is high time that we put our heads together and carefully prepare a syllabus which would give religious education to the students of our schools and make them better humans. Such religious education would not be considered to be prohibited even in schools receiving aid from the State.

- Joaquim Reis, Advocate, High Court