Supreme Court Demands Response from Education Secretary on Regulation of Educational Institutions

The Supreme Court of India has called for a response from the Secretary of School Education regarding a petition that alleges non-compliance with regulations for educational institutions serving children under 14. The case, brought forth by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, raises concerns about the proliferation of unregistered institutions, particularly in border areas, and emphasizes the need for oversight to protect vulnerable children. This inquiry not only addresses educational standards but also touches on broader issues of national security, as the potential for manipulation in unregulated environments poses risks to the future of the nation. The court's decision to seek a response within four weeks adds urgency to the matter.

By Narendra Chaudhary Sep 15, 2026, 14:08 IST

Supreme Court's Inquiry into Educational Oversight

New Delhi: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court requested a response from the Secretary of School Education within the Ministry of Education regarding a petition that claims the government has failed to comply with its directive to regulate educational institutions providing instruction to children under the age of 14.

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu issued a notice to T K Anil Kumar, the Secretary of the Department of School Education and Literacy, demanding a reply within four weeks.

This inquiry arose from a contempt petition submitted by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who contended that the Secretary had not acted on his earlier representation.

Previously, on May 11, the Supreme Court instructed Upadhyay to present his case to the Union of India.

The petition, filed through advocate Ashwani Dubey, requested the government to implement measures for the registration, recognition, supervision, and monitoring of all institutions providing secular or religious education to children up to 14 years, in accordance with Article 21A alongside Articles 39(f), 45, and 51-A(k).

It was argued that Article 30 does not provide minorities with any additional rights beyond those already guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g), which allows individuals to practice any profession, occupation, trade, or business.

The plea seeks to clarify that Article 30 merely reiterates Article 19(1)(g) without conferring any extra rights or privileges.

The petitioner is pursuing this Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 to ensure the registration, recognition, supervision, and monitoring of all institutions offering secular or religious education to children up to 14 years, in line with Articles 21A, 39(f), 45, and 51-A(k).

The petitioner emphasizes that children are crucial for the nation's future and are particularly vulnerable due to their age, thus placing a greater responsibility on the State to protect them. This matter is framed as a national security concern, as unregulated institutions could potentially manipulate young minds.

Upadhyay has reported visiting several districts near the Uttar Pradesh border, where he observed numerous unregistered and unrecognized institutions operating without oversight.

He expressed concern that such institutions are spreading in border areas of the country without any effective regulatory framework.