Constitution of India
Article 28: Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions
Part III — Fundamental Rights
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds. WHAT IT MEANS: Places an absolute ban on teaching tenets, doctrines, rituals of any particular religion in fully government-funded schools, colleges, and universities. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Secular Education — State funds cannot be used to propagate any faith; ensures neutrality of government-run institutions.
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: Clause (1) shall not apply to an educational institution administered by the State but established under any endowment or trust which requires religious instruction. WHAT IT MEANS: If a trust or endowment originally mandated religious teaching, even if the State later takes over administration, religious instruction can continue. KEY DOCTRINE: Endowment/Trust Exception Doctrine — Respects the original intent of the founder even when State assumes management.
Clause (3)
WHAT IT SAYS: No person attending a State-recognised or State-aided institution shall be required to take part in religious instruction or worship unless that person (or guardian, if minor) has given consent. WHAT IT MEANS: In partially State-aided or State-recognised institutions, religious instruction may exist but participation must be purely voluntary with explicit consent. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Voluntary Consent — Protects freedom of conscience; no compulsion in religious participation within aided/recognised institutions.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. United States — First Amendment (Establishment Clause) Original provision: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. What India kept: The core principle that public funds must not be used to promote any particular religion in State institutions. 2. Ireland — Article 44 of the Irish Constitution (1937) Original provision: The State shall not endow any religion; every child has right to attend school receiving public money without attending religious instruction. What India kept: The concept of allowing opt-out from religious instruction in aided institutions, and protecting freedom of conscience. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Four-tier classification of institutions (wholly State-funded, trust-established but State-administered, State-aided, State-recognised) — India's enormous diversity of educational institutions required nuanced, graded rules rather than a single blanket prohibition. 2. Trust/Endowment Exception in Clause (2) — Recognises India's long history of religious endowments and charitable trusts funding education; avoids destroying pre-existing institutional mandates. 3. Consent-based opt-out rather than blanket exclusion for aided institutions — India's pluralistic society required balancing minority educational rights (Article 30) with individual freedom of conscience.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 7 December 1948 (CAD Volume VII) Draft Article Number: Draft Article 22 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Drafting Committee Chairman) — Moved amendment to omit 'by the State' from Clause (1) to avoid any inference that non-State entities could impart religious instruction in State-funded institutions. Justified the ban on three grounds: (a) public funds cannot benefit one community, (b) providing religious instruction to every community is near-impossible, (c) teachings of one religion may conflict with another. 2. K.T. Shah — Wanted the ban on religious instruction extended to ALL State institutions, not just educational ones, to protect minorities from majoritarian religious propaganda. 3. Lokanath Misra (Orissa) — Opposed the Draft Article, arguing ancient Indian faith and culture should be given a fair deal and religion cannot be divorced from life. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Blanket ban vs. consent-based permission — Several members argued that religious education with parental consent should be permitted even in State institutions; Ambedkar rejected this. 2. Majority community's rights — Some members argued the Draft Article protected minority religious instruction (via Article 30) but denied the same right to the majority community. 3. Scope of ban — K.T. Shah proposed extending the prohibition beyond educational institutions to all State institutions; this was rejected. FINAL OUTCOME: The Assembly accepted only two minor clarificatory/verbal amendments; the Draft Article was adopted on 7 December 1948 largely as proposed by the Drafting Committee. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE: Defended the article as 'part and parcel of the Charter of liberty and religious freedom to see that no particular denomination is given any advantage over another denomination.'
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. D.A.V. College, Bhatinda v. State of Punjab (1971) — Academic study of Guru Nanak's life and teachings does not amount to 'religious instruction' prohibited by Article 28(1); upheld the Guru Nanak University Act, 1969. 2. Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College v. State of Gujarat (1974) — Minority institutions have the right to impart religious instruction under Articles 26 and 30, provided the State does not wholly fund them; secularism neither promotes 'no-god' nor 'anti-god.' 3. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) — Articles 25 to 28 form part of the Constitution's basic structure; secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution and politics and religion must not be mixed. 4. Aruna Roy v. Union of India (2002) — Distinguished 'religious instruction' from 'education about religion'; study of religions, philosophies, and moral values does not violate Article 28; education about religion is not the same as indoctrination into religion. 5. In Re: The Kerala Education Bill (1957) — Upheld secular nature of education; State funds should not be used for imparting religious instruction, but minority institutions may manage their educational affairs in accordance with their faith. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. No recorded major dissent specifically on Article 28 interpretation in the above cases. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. V.N. Shukla (Constitution of India, 14th edn) — Article 28 creates a four-tiered classification of institutions with graduated restrictions on religious instruction. 2. Dr. Haridwar Shukla — Articles 25-28 are foundational to India's constitutional architecture, guaranteeing religious liberty, group autonomy, and state neutrality, subject to regulation in public interest.