ARUNA ROY Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2002-9-3
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
September 12,2002
ARUNA ROY
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
D A V COLLEGE BHATINDA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]S R BOMMAI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED } (PARA 37)]
SANTOSH KUMAR VS. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT [REFERRED]
A S NARAYANA DEEKSHITULU S SRINIVASAN VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
UNION OF INDIA VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2013-4-70] [REFERRED TO]ALLAHABAD HERITAGE SOCIETY AND 12 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P AND 4 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-2-97] [REFERRED TO]
HINDU FRONT FOR JUSTICE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-199] [REFERRED]
KALPANA MEHTA AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2018-5-31] [REFERRED TO]
MD. IMAD UDDIN BARBHUIYA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
UMESH BAIJAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGAT KALICHARAN MAKHIJANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-4-195] [REFERRED TO]
NAROTE AMOL SADASHIVRAO VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-3-91] [REFERRED TO]
C/M, KANYA VIDYALAYA KISRAULI VS. STATE OF U.P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-10-36] [REFERRED TO]
SHEETALA PRASAD SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-7-241] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2019-4-91] [REFERRED TO]
JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (READ.) VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-8-94] [REFERRED TO]
D. MURUGAIAH VS. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT AT NAGERCOIL AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-77] [REFERRED TO]
INDIRA GANDHI CENTRE FOR ATOMIC RESEARCH VS. D.GANESAN [LAWS(MAD)-2022-4-28] [REFERRED TO]
BACHAN LAL KALGOTRA VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [LAWS(J&K)-2016-4-11] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT KANYA VIDHYALAYA KISRAULI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2012-12-173] [REFERRED TO]
KUMARI SURYA SHUKLA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2007-4-416] [REFERRED TO]
TRUSTEE, HIDAYA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-1-67] [REFERRED TO]
CATHOLIC BISHOPS COUNCIL VS. STATE [LAWS(MPH)-2012-1-62] [REFERRED TO]
BASUDEV SETHI VS. STATE OF ODISHA & ANOTHER [LAWS(ORI)-2017-12-67] [REFERRED TO]
ANJUM KADARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2024-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
MAHIMA SWAMI AND OTHERS VS. KAUPINDHARI MAHIMA SAMAJ AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2018-1-131] [REFERRED TO]
VISHAL VISWAKARMA AND OTHERS VS. RAVENSHAW UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2018-4-40] [REFERRED TO]
SUO MOTU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-3-50] [REFERRED TO]
RUTVJ WAZE AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-2-201] [REFERRED TO]
S RAMADOSS VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2003-1-142] [REFERRED TO]
NOORJAHAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-8-121] [REFERRED TO]
XL IIT FORUM VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-5-171] [REFERRED TO]
VOL : 1; SUNNI CENTRAL BOARD OF WAQFS AND ORS VS. GOPAL SINGH VISHARAD AND ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2010-9-626] [REFERRED]
RAJEEV SURI VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(SC)-2021-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
DR. JAISHRI LAXMANRAO PATIL VS. THE CHIEF MINISTER & ORS [LAWS(SC)-2021-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. AGRICULTURAL MARKET [LAWS(APH)-2011-3-123] [REFERRED TO]
HAR PAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-5-181] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2009-10-191] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY ANANDA SALVE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-10-153] [REFERRED TO BIJOE]
SANJAY KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-7-288] [REFERRED TO]
GAUHATI HIGH COURT PRINCIPAL SEAT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. GAUHATI HIGH COURT [LAWS(GAU)-2006-6-60] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VISAKHAPATNAM VS. VIJAYAWADA BOTTLING CO LIMITED VIJAYAWADA [LAWS(APH)-2012-1-70] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK TANWAR VS. STATE OF H P [LAWS(SC)-2004-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
SARIKA VS. ADMINISTRATOR, SHRI MAHAKALESHWAR MANDIR COMMITTEE, UJJAIN (M.P.) & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2018-5-32] [REFERRED TO]
AISHAT SHIFA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2022-10-14] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)In this public interest litigation filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, it has been mainly contended that the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (hereinafter referred to as the "NCFSE") published by National Council of Educational Research and Training (hereinafter referred to as "NCERT") is against the constitutional mandate, anti-secular, and without consultation with Central Adivisory Board of Education (hereinafter referred to as "CABE") and, therefore, requires to be set aside. Admittedly, CABE is in existence since 1935 and it is submitted that uptil now before framing the new NCFSE, the CABE was always consulted.
(2.)At the time of hearing of this matter, it was contended by Mr. C. S. Vaidyanathan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the issues involves is one of grave constitutional importance affecting the future of children and in substance contentions are as under :
1. The respondents have not sought the approval of the Central Advisory Board of to the National Curriculum Framework for School Education, 2000 and without obtaining the approval of the CABE, the NCFSE cannot be implemented.
2. The NCFSE and the Syllabus framed thereunder are unconstitutional as the same are violative of the rubric of secularism which is part of the basic structure of our Constitution. The NCFSE and the Syllabus are also violative of the fundamental right to education, fundamental right to development, fundamental right to information (which have all been read into the right to life under Article 21) and also Articles 27 and 28 of the Constitution of India.
Non-Consultation with CABE
(3.)We would first deal with the contention that non-consultation with CABE before framing National Curriculum is unjustified and, therefore, it cannot be implemented. It is submitted that the CABE is a pivotal and the highest body in the matters pertaining to education and has always played an important role in evolving any national document/policy pertaining to education as it not only has the required expertise but also an effective mechanism for State-Centre co-ordination.
(2.)At the time of hearing of this matter, it was contended by Mr. C. S. Vaidyanathan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the issues involves is one of grave constitutional importance affecting the future of children and in substance contentions are as under :
1. The respondents have not sought the approval of the Central Advisory Board of to the National Curriculum Framework for School Education, 2000 and without obtaining the approval of the CABE, the NCFSE cannot be implemented.
2. The NCFSE and the Syllabus framed thereunder are unconstitutional as the same are violative of the rubric of secularism which is part of the basic structure of our Constitution. The NCFSE and the Syllabus are also violative of the fundamental right to education, fundamental right to development, fundamental right to information (which have all been read into the right to life under Article 21) and also Articles 27 and 28 of the Constitution of India.
Non-Consultation with CABE
(3.)We would first deal with the contention that non-consultation with CABE before framing National Curriculum is unjustified and, therefore, it cannot be implemented. It is submitted that the CABE is a pivotal and the highest body in the matters pertaining to education and has always played an important role in evolving any national document/policy pertaining to education as it not only has the required expertise but also an effective mechanism for State-Centre co-ordination.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.