Why the Yogi Adityanath-led BJP government’s move of using public funds for imparting religious instruction violates Article 28 of the Constitution.

Representational Image. Image Courtesy: Pexels
“No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State Funds” unless “established under any endowment or trust which requires that religious instruction shall be imparted in such institution”. (Article 28 of the Indian Constitution)
It has been more than 75 years since the founding fathers (and mothers) of the Constitution took this bold stand when they were shaping the guidelines around which the newly independent country would move forward. ..
…..Much water has flown down the Ganges, the Jamuna and all rivers of the country and it appears that slowly, but not so silently, attempts are on to water down the provisions of this Article and facilitating religious instruction in government schools through the back door.
The manner in which Yogi Adityanath-led Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in Uttar Pradesh has suddenly decided to hold summer workshops on the Ramayana and the Vedas in government schools across the state, without any broader consultation with the stakeholders involved in this endeavour, is symptomatic of the brazen attitude of the government. We are told that these workshops will be organised under the aegis of the International Ramayana and Vedic Research Institute, Ayodhya, and will include activities, like Ramlila, Ramcharitmanas recitation, Vedic chanting, painting, and mask-making.
As expected, this retrograde move by the Yogi government has generated anger among the broad masses as well as concerned citizens, who have demanded that this move be immediately rescinded. ( Read the full article here : https://www.newsclick.in/ramayana-vedic-workshops-govt-schools-challenged )











The Supreme Court has held that the use of extra-legal armed forces in Chhattisgarh is unconstitutional. Responding to a PIL filed by Nandini Sundar, Ramachandra Guha and E.A.S. Sharma, the court’s decision turns on the nature of the Salwa Judum and the appointment of special police officers under the Chhattisgarh Police Act. But if it were a judgment that had merely ruled on the technicalities, it would have been a welcome and competent order, but would have missed its moment of constitutional greatness. This judgment attains such greatness by virtue of its deft combination of insightful legal analysis, the articulation of a moral vision of constitutionalism and development and its sharp invocation of rhetoric (in the best sense of the term) and fiction to buttress its arguments.