Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that pupils in government-run schools cannot be compelled to recite Hindu prayers, marking a judicial check on a state education circular that had triggered concerns over religious freedom, secularism and the rights of children in public institutions.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad delivered the order on Thursday while hearing a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of a June 12 circular issued by the State School Education Department. The circular sought to introduce Saraswati Vandana, Gayatri Mantra, Guru Mantra, Shanti Mantra and Deep Prajwalan as part of daily activities in government schools from the 2026-27 academic session.
The court made it clear that participation in such prayers must remain voluntary. Pupils who wish to take part may do so, but no child can be forced to chant religious mantras or join a religious observance against personal belief, family faith or conscience. The ruling places the dispute within the framework of constitutional protections governing state-funded education.
The petition, filed by Abdul Salam Rizvi and others, challenged the circular on the ground that government schools cannot institutionalise religious practices linked to one faith. The petitioners argued that mandatory recitation would violate the freedom of conscience and the secular character of public education. They also contended that children from minority, tribal and non-religious backgrounds could be placed under pressure to conform.
The court’s intervention rests on the constitutional principle that state-maintained educational institutions cannot impose religious instruction or worship. Article 28 bars religious instruction in institutions wholly maintained by state funds, while Article 28 protects students from being required to attend religious worship or instruction without consent. Article 25 also guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health.
The order does not prevent schools from holding assemblies or value-based activities. Its effect is to draw a line between cultural or moral instruction and compulsory participation in religious practice. That distinction is likely to shape how school authorities interpret the circular across Chhattisgarh’s government education system.
The state had defended the move as an attempt to promote discipline, moral values and cultural awareness among students. The circular had been framed as part of morning assembly activities, alongside existing practices such as the national anthem and national song. Critics, however, said the inclusion of specific Hindu prayers changed the character of school assemblies from civic gatherings into religious observances.
The controversy gained wider political and social attention because Chhattisgarh has a substantial tribal population, along with Christian, Muslim and other minority communities. Former MLA and tribal leader Manish Kunjam publicly opposed the move, arguing that Adivasi children should not be pushed into Hindu religious practices through the school system. Civil rights groups also demanded withdrawal of the circular, saying public education must remain inclusive and neutral.
The ruling is also significant because disputes over prayer in schools have repeatedly reached constitutional courts. The Supreme Court’s 1986 judgment in the Bijoe Emmanuel case remains a key precedent, holding that students who respectfully stood during the national anthem but did not sing it because of religious belief could not be punished. The judgment affirmed that freedom of conscience protects silent non-participation, provided there is no disruption or disrespect.
Legal experts view the Chhattisgarh order as consistent with that broader jurisprudence. The court has not declared that prayers can never be recited by willing students. It has instead emphasised that consent is central, particularly where children are in a state-controlled educational setting and may feel unable to refuse instructions from teachers or school authorities.
The case also comes amid intensified debate over the role of religion in public institutions. Several states have faced legal and political disputes over school uniforms, religious symbols, moral education modules and assembly practices. The Chhattisgarh matter adds another layer to that debate by testing whether a government circular can prescribe religious content for daily school routines.
The immediate administrative challenge for the State School Education Department will be implementation. School heads and teachers will need clarity on how to ensure that no pupil is compelled, directly or indirectly, to participate. Coercion may not always take the form of punishment; it can also emerge through classroom pressure, peer expectations or the fear of being marked as different.
