Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Gayatri Mantra Circular in Schools, Says No Constitutional Violation Proven

Raipur, July 8, 2026: The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld a State government circular introducing Sanskrit prayers during morning assemblies in government schools, ruling that there is no evidence that students are being compelled to participate or that their constitutional rights have been violated.

In a judgment delivered on July 2, Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad dismissed a petition challenging the June 12 government circular, observing that the case was founded on apprehensions rather than demonstrable instances of coercion or infringement of religious freedom.

The petition was filed by former Chhattisgarh Waqf Board chairman Abdul Salam Rizvi, former Minority Department chairman Mahendra Chhabda, and social activist Shafique Ahmed. They argued that the circular undermined the secular character of the Constitution by prescribing the recitation of prayers traditionally associated with Hinduism in State-funded schools.

The circular directs government schools to include the National Anthem, National Song, Deep Mantra, Saraswati Vandana, Guru Mantra, and biographies of national leaders during morning assemblies. It also prescribes the Bhojan Mantra before mid-day meals and the Gayatri Mantra and Shanti Mantra at the close of the school day.

The petitioners contended that these prayers are rooted in Hindu religious traditions and that the circular fails to provide exemptions for students belonging to other faiths. They alleged violations of constitutional guarantees relating to equality, personal liberty, freedom of religion, and minority rights.

Rejecting these arguments, the High Court noted that the circular does not make participation mandatory and contains no provision compelling students to recite the prayers against their conscience. The Court further observed that the petitioners had not produced any evidence that students had been forced to participate or had suffered any violation of their constitutional rights.

Describing the challenge as premature, Justice Prasad stated that the Court could not adjudicate on hypothetical concerns in the absence of actual instances of coercion. At the same time, the judgment clarified that legal remedies would remain available if evidence later emerged showing that students were being compelled to participate contrary to their beliefs.

Addressing the constitutional question under Article 28, which prohibits religious instruction in educational institutions wholly funded by the State, the Court held that the provision does not prohibit moral education detached from denominational doctrines. The judgment observed that moral instruction aimed at promoting discipline, responsible citizenship, social harmony, and respect for others falls within the constitutional framework.

The Chhattisgarh government defended the policy by maintaining that the Sanskrit verses represent India's civilisational heritage and promote universal ethical values rather than religious doctrine. It argued that the prayers encourage gratitude, respect for teachers, environmental awareness, intellectual development, and peace, and are consistent with the objectives of the National Education Policy 2020, which promotes the inclusion of Indian Knowledge Systems in education.

Government counsel also informed the Court that the circular had been implemented in government schools without complaints from students, parents, or teachers, and that participation was voluntary, with no disciplinary action prescribed for those choosing not to recite the prayers.

The ruling is expected to fuel continuing debate over the place of religious and cultural expressions in publicly funded educational institutions. While supporters view the Sanskrit prayers as part of India's shared cultural heritage, critics argue that practices associated with a particular religious tradition may leave students from minority communities feeling excluded, even when participation is voluntary.

The High Court, however, limited its decision to the facts presented before it, concluding that no constitutional violation had been established. The circular, therefore, remains in force, though the Court has left open the possibility of future legal challenges should concrete evidence emerge that students' rights to freedom of conscience or religion are infringed.

Courtesy Bar and Bench

Picture Courtesy : Shutter Stock