The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled on Thursday that no child can be forced to recite Hindu prayers in government schools, rejecting a government directive that had sparked widespread controversy. The court's decision followed a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of a June 12 circular issued by the Chhattisgarh School Education Department. The circular mandated that all state-run schools incorporate daily recitations of Hindu prayers, including the Gayatri Mantra, as part of a broader initiative aimed at promoting patriotism, discipline, and cultural awareness among students. The court emphasized that the petitioners—comprising former Chhattisgarh Waqf Board chairman Abdul Salam Rizvi, former Minority Department chairman Mahendra Chhabda, and social activist Shafique Ahmed—had argued that the directive violated the constitutional principle of secularism and the fundamental rights of minority communities. The court acknowledged that the circular had not yet been fully implemented and granted the petitioners the opportunity to return if they discovered any instances of coercion in religious practices.
The government's June 12 order outlined a structured daily routine for schools, requiring the recitation of the national anthem, national song, Deep Mantra, Saraswati Vandana, Guru Mantra, and readings from the biographies of notable figures during morning assemblies. Students were also required to recite the Bhojan Mantra before midday meals and the Gayatri Mantra and Shanti Mantra before leaving school. Despite the government's claim that the directive aimed to foster cultural and moral education, the measure faced immediate backlash from the opposition Congress party, which accused the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of imposing a religious agenda on students. Opposition leaders criticized the policy as an attempt to transform schools into "Saraswati Shishu Mandirs" and expressed concern over the potential marginalization of non-Hindu students.
The petitioners, representing diverse backgrounds, highlighted the constitutional implications of the directive, arguing that compelling religious rituals in government schools contravened the principles of secular governance enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Their challenge underscored the tension between state-led cultural initiatives and the protection of religious freedom and minority rights. The court's ruling, delivered by Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, affirmed that while the government had the authority to promote cultural values, such efforts must not infringe upon the constitutional rights of individuals. The court instructed the petitioners to bring forward evidence of any forced religious practices if they emerged, ensuring continued oversight of the situation.
Meanwhile, in a separate but related development, the Bombay High Court addressed the issue of externment orders against political activists. The court quashed a one-year externment order imposed on Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, a state general secretary of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI). The order had been issued following protests organized by Chaudhary and his party members against government policies, including the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the National Register of Citizens (NRC), and the Waqf (Amendment) Bill. The court questioned the rationale behind using anti-government slogans such as "BJP government murdabad" and "Amit Shah murdabad" as grounds for externalizing a citizen from the city. Justice Madhav Jamdar emphasized that citizens have the right to dissent and that the police are public servants, not agents of political power. The court ruled that the externment order violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and the right to life with dignity.
Both rulings reflect growing judicial scrutiny of state actions that may encroach upon civil liberties and constitutional freedoms. The Chhattisgarh High Court's emphasis on protecting minority rights in educational settings highlights ongoing debates over the role of religion in public institutions, while the Bombay High Court's intervention underscores the importance of safeguarding free speech and dissent in democratic societies. As these cases proceed, they signal a broader trend of courts asserting their role in balancing governmental authority with individual rights, particularly in contexts where religious and political tensions intersect.
6 reports
The HinduIndependentLeftFactual 95Objective 90yesterdayThe Bombay High Court ruled that externment orders cannot be issued solely based on participation in protests against the government, emphasizing the protection of fundamental rights. The court quashed a year-long externment order against Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, a leader of the Social Democratic Party of India, who challenged the order filed by the Mumbai police. The police argued that the protests led by Chaudhary and his party workers were unauthorized, but the court found no evidence that these activities caused harm. It stressed that citizens have the right to express dissent and protest, highlighting the importance of freedom of speech and the right to live with dignity.
Bias read (Left): The article frames the court's ruling as a defense of democratic freedoms and citizen rights, particularly in response to government actions. While the court is portrayed as upholding constitutional values, the emphasis on protecting dissenting voices aligns with progressive interpretations of civil
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): Precisely reflects the Bombay High Court's ruling, citing the impact on fundamental rights and quoting the court's questions regarding the justification for the externment order. Maintains neutrality in presenting the facts.
Hindustan TimesIndependentLeftFactual 95Objective 90yesterdayThe Bombay High Court overturned an externment order against Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, a state general secretary of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), who was banned from entering Mumbai and surrounding areas for one year. The court questioned whether slogans like 'BJP government murdabad' and 'Amit Shah murdabad' could legally justify such action. Justice Madhav Jamdar criticized the police for using these slogans as grounds for externalization, arguing that democratic dissent should not be suppressed. He emphasized that citizens have the right to express opinions and live with dignity under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court ruled the action was 'malafide' and violated constitutional rights, highlighting concerns about political bias and the misuse of legal processes.
Bias read (Left): The article frames the court's ruling as a defense of democratic dissent against perceived governmental overreach. It highlights criticism of the BJP and Amit Shah, uses terms like 'malafide' and 'horse-trading,' and emphasizes constitutional rights in opposition to what is portrayed as politically-
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): Accurately summarizes the Bombay High Court's decision to quash the externment order against Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary. Provides direct quotes from Justice Madhav Jamdar and contextualizes the issue with references to protests and political dynamics.
Scroll.inIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 90yesterdayThe Bombay High Court ruled that protesting against government decisions or using slogans like 'BJP murdabad' (meaning 'death to BJP') do not justify expelling a citizen from an area. The court quashed an externment order against Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, a leader of the Socialist Democratic Party of India, who was ordered to stay away from Mumbai and surrounding regions for one year. The order was issued by the Chembur deputy commissioner of police under the Maharashtra Police Act, citing his involvement in organizing protests against policies such as the Citizenship Amendment Act and fuel price hikes. The court emphasized that such actions infringe on citizens' rights to freedom of speech and dignity. It also questioned whether similar orders would be issued against other protesters, referencing recent demonstrations against a leaked National Eligibility cum Entrance Test paper.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the court's ruling without overt ideological slant, focusing on legal interpretation rather than partisan critique. While the case involves politically sensitive issues like protests against the BJP and government policies, the framing remains neutral, emphasizing judicial and宪法
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): Accurately summarizes the Bombay High Court's decision to quash the externment order against Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary. Provides direct quotes from Justice Madhav Jamdar and contextualizes the issue with references to protests and political dynamics.
Hindustan TimesIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 85yesterday Citizens can't be made slaves of government: Bombay HC says people cannot be externed over protestsThe Bombay High Court ruled that citizens cannot be forced into exile (externment) solely for protesting against government policies or using anti-government slogans. The court struck down the externment order against Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, a leader of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), who was ordered to leave Mumbai and surrounding areas for 12 months. The court emphasized constitutional rights to freedom of expression and living with dignity under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. It criticized the government for selectively targeting individuals based on political affiliation and questioned whether similar actions would be taken against other protesters. Chaudhary argued that the externment hindered his ability to participate in upcoming local body elections.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the court's decision neutrally, quoting the judges' statements and providing context about the legal arguments and the protest-related charges against Chaudhary. There is no overtly biased language or selective sourcing that favors one side over another. The framing remains fact
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 85): Correctly reports the Bombay High Court's decision and includes direct quotes from Justice Madhav Jamdar. The tone slightly leans toward emphasizing the court's critique of the government's actions but remains largely objective.
Hindustan TimesIndependentCenterFactual 60Objective 7019 hr. ago No child can be forced to recite Hindu prayers, rules Chhattisgarh High Court after row over govt orderThe Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that schoolchildren cannot be forced to recite Hindu prayers in government schools, responding to a legal challenge against a controversial government order. The June 12 directive from the State School Education Department mandated the recitation of Hindu prayers such as the Gayatri Mantra, along with other cultural and patriotic activities, in all state-run schools. The order faced significant backlash, particularly from the opposition Congress party, who accused the ruling BJP of imposing a religious agenda on students. The petitioners argued that the directive violated India's constitutional principles of secularism and fundamental rights by promoting specific religious practices in government institutions. The court ordered the petitioners to return if any child was still being compelled to participate in religious recitations.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the court's ruling and includes perspectives from both the petitioners and the government, providing balanced coverage of the controversy without overtly favoring one side. It does not exhibit strong biased language or one-sided sourcing.
Why these scores (Factual 60 · Objective 70): This article discusses a separate case involving the Chhattisgarh High Court and government school prayer mandates, unrelated to the Bombay High Court's externment order. It provides factual details about the Chhattisgarh case but is irrelevant to the primary source document.
Scroll.inIndependentLeftFactual 60Objective 70yesterday Government school students cannot be compelled to recite Hindu prayers: Chhattisgarh HCThe Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that government school students cannot be compelled to recite Hindu prayers, addressing a petition challenging a BJP government directive mandating daily prayer recitations. The court noted that while the June 12 circular required schools to include specific prayers in their routines, it had not yet been implemented. The ruling allows petitioners to reapply if any child is forced to recite these prayers, with the court promising to take action if such cases arise. The circular aimed to integrate 'intellectual development and cultural awareness' through daily rituals including the national anthem, various mantras, and religious chants.
Bias read (Left): The article frames the court's decision as a protection against religious coercion, emphasizing the separation of religion from education. While the ruling itself is neutral, the emphasis on individual freedom and critique of the BJP government's directive suggests a left-leaning perspective. The ph
Why these scores (Factual 60 · Objective 70): This article discusses a different case involving the Chhattisgarh High Court and government school prayer mandates, unrelated to the Bombay High Court's externment order. It provides factual details about the Chhattisgarh case but is irrelevant to the primary source document.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
Become a Supporter
India
