IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.8806/2014 AND WRIT PETITION Nos.8830-8873/2014 (EDN – RES) BETWEEN:
1. NITHYANANDA GURUKULA KALLUGOPANAHALLI, BIDADI RAMANAGARA TALUK BANGALORE-562 109. REP.BY IT SECRETARY SRI.SAIRAM MUTHUSWAMY S/O N.MUTHUSWAMY AGED 42 YEARS 2. SAIRAM MUTHUSWAMY S/O N.MUTHUSWAMY AGE 42 YEARS R/AT NITHYANANDA DHYANAPEETA KALLUGOPANAHALLI BIDADI, RAMANAGARA TALUK BANGALORE-562 109.
3. V.SRIDEVI W/O T.S.ARAVINTHAN, AGE 36 YEARS R/AT NITHYANANDA DHYANAPEETA, KALLUGOPANAHALLI, BIDADI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, BANGALORE-562 109.
4. S.THAIYAL NAYAGI W/O G.SIVASUBRAMANIAN, AGE 37 YEARS R/AT NO.41/6, THULUKKAN NAICKEN STREET, CHENNAI-600 019, TAMIL NADU.
5. J.KAMALAKANNAN S/O JAGANADHAM, AGE 50 YEARS R/AT No.110 T.V.NAGAR, EMBALAM POST, PONDYCHERRY.
6. G.BASKER S/O R.GURUSAMY, AGE 50 YEARS R/AT 5/19, VANNIYAR STREET, A KOSPA AMBUR-635802.
7. G.SELVAM S/O GOVINDAN, AGE 44 YEARS R/A-60/B BIG KOMBESHWARAM-635 808.
8. MANISH CHANDRA S/O BRIJRAJ CHANDRA, AGE-43 YEARS R/A-212, PHASE 4 GOLDEN PARK APARTMENTS, KODICHIKANNAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 076.
9. SRIDHAR RAJAGOPAL S/O LATE N.RAJAGOPALAN, AGE 47 YEARS R/A 542 4TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, WOC ROAD, BANGALORE-560 086.
10. SATHISHSELVAKUMAR S/O N.SELVAKUMAR, AGE 32 YEARS R/AT-A-108, ARISTOCRAT APARTMENTS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, KASTHRUI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 043.
11. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O E.MANIKAM, AGE 37 YEARS R/A-CHANDRA SUPRIYA, 41 A PMS KOLLI 3RD STREET, KRISHNAPURAM, AMBUR-635 802.
12. M.SELVI W/O S.MURUGAN, AGE 40 YEARS R/A-7, 2ND CROSS, MANICKA NAGAR, EMBALAM-605 106.
13. VIJAYA LAKSHMI W/O B.V.SURESH, AGE 32 YEARS R/A-140 BOJJEPALLI (VIG). DENKANIKOTTA POST-635 107.
14. P.SHAKILA D/O R.PERUMAL, AGE 34 YEARS R/A-NO.140A, THOOKKANAMBAKKAM & POST, CUDDALORE DIST.
15. G.MANI S/O G.CHINNADURAI, AGE 41 YEARS R/A-837, KATERIYAMMAN KOIL STEEET, VILANAKUPPAM, VANYAPADI, VELLORE DIST.
16. M.DHANAVATHY W/O G.MURUGAN, AGE 38 YEARS R/A-VAJRAVEL-A4, BLOCK, NO.8, 4TH MAIN ROAD, PAVANAR NAGAR, PONDYCHERRY-605 106.
17. T.SARAVANAN S/O N.TIRUNAVUKKARASU, AGE 43 YEARS R/A 40/9, ACHARIYA STREET, NEHRU NAGAR, TIRUTANI, THIRUVALLUR-631 209.
18. M.ULAGARAJ S/O K.R.MURUGAN, AGE 37 YEARS R/A-2/125, KETHANDAPATTI VILLAGE & POST, VANIYAMBADI-VELORE DI 635 815.
19. K.P.GNANA MOORTHY S/O K.N.PLANI, AGE 46 YEARS R/A P.NO.29, F.NO.202, VIJAY TEJA RESIDENCY, EAST ANAND BAGH, MALKAIGIRI, HYDERABAD-500 047.
20. K.RAMANI S/O T.S. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGE 51 YEARS R/A-5/768A, MUNEESHWARAR NAGAR, HOSUR-635 109.
21. JAGADEESAN S/O S.SENGOTTAVEL, AGE 48 YEARS R/A -5/71, MANNARPALAYAM, SALEM-636 008.
22. K.MEENA W/O P.KUMAR, AGE 31 YEARS R/A PLOT NO.21, JJ NAGAR, HOSUR-635 109.
23. S.LAKSHMI W/O P.SELVAM, AGE 30 YEARS, R/A KOTTRAPALLI, KONERI PALLI POST, HOSUR.
24. S.MURUGESAN S/O S.SADAYAN, AGE 38 YEARS R/A SILNAYAKAN PATTI NAGAR, SALEM.
25. R.RAJKUMARI W/O V.RAMESH, AGE 38 YEARS R/A KOLLAMPATTI POST, THURAIYUR T.K., TRICHY-DIST.
26. N.SARAVANAKUMAR S/O K.NATARAJAN, AGE 41 YEARS R/A-1/7, EAST STREET, PAVIHIRAM POST, NAMAKKA-637 021.
27. H.MUTHUKRISHNAN S/O ISUHARIRAM, AGE 37 YEARS, R/A 3B,/66, KAMARAJAR STREET, C.M.NAGAR, VANDIYUR-MADURAI-20.
28. K.C.BALACHANDRAN S/O K.R.CHANDRASEKARAN, AGE 50 YEARS R/A NEW NO.50 RAGHAVA CHETTY STEET, CHOOLAI, CHENNAI-600 112.
29. R.RAMESH S/O RASU, AGE 45 YEARS R/A 153 PONNIAMMAN KOIL STREET, MANGADU ROAD, MOULIVAKKAM, PORUR, CHENNAI-125.
30. M. ARUMUGAM, S/O MANIKAM, AGE 40 YEARS R/A-3549 SOUTH II ST. PUDUKOTTAI-622 001.
31. P.MUTHU S/O K.PALANIAPPAN, AGE 39 YEARS R/A-13/53B GOVELLIAMMAN KOIL STEET, THIRUVOTRIYUR VT, CHENNAI-600 119.
32. V.SANTAMOHAN S/O M.S.VARADARAJAN, AGE 49 YEARS R/A-ADS KA TUNKU PUTRO KULIM KEDAH, MALAYSIA-09000 33. S.PARUVADHA W/O SUNDARAVADIVEL, AGE 44 YEARS R/A-AMMAYAPPA NAGAR, PAKKARITHAKA POST, JOLARPET, VELLORE DIST.
34. A.SUSEELA W/O VIJAYAN, AGE 46 YEARS R/A PALLATHUR ANDIYAR POST, UTHANGARAI, KRISHNAGIRI DIST, TAMILNADU.
35. M.RAVICHANDRAN S/O MARIAPPAN, AGE 46 YEARS R/A SARAPATTI, KARUNGALAKUDI POST, MELUR TK, MADURAI DT.
36. M.V.JAYARAMA REDDY S/O VENKATASWAMY, AGE 46 YEARS R/A-73 2ND CROSS, 9TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 011.
37. M.PARAMESWARI D/O K.NARAYANAMURTHY, AGE 32 YEARS R/A NITHYANANDA DHYANAPEETA, KALLUGOPAHALLI, BIDADI-562 109.
38. KAVITHA LAKSHMI W/O GOVINDARAJAN, K. AGE 33 YEARS R/A 63/O WYNDHAM HILL DR CHARLOTTE, NL.28269.
39. V.MEENAKSHI W/O P.VELAYUDHAM, AGE 34 YEARS R/A NITHYANANDA DHYANAPEETA, KALLUGOPAHALLI, BIDADI-562 109.
40. MA ANANDA SAMBHAVI W/O SRI.NITHYA VIDHYADARAN, AGE 30 YEARS R/A-12/21513 NITHYANANDAPURI, PNS NAGAR, KOMALA KUNNU, PUNALUR-691 305.
41. MA NITHYA KHUSALYA W/O SRI.NITHYA AMBALAVALAN, AGE 52 YEARS R/A-17 MATHA WEST STREET, TIRUNELVELI TOWN 627 006, TAMIL NADU.
42. Y.B.SUMAN W/O T.C.PARAMESHA, AGE 42 YEARS R/A-GAJANANA HARDWARE DEPT, MANDIPET, TUMKUR CITY, KARNATAKA-572 102.
43. DR.S. ANILKUMAR S/O B.S.SANJEEVA RAO, AGE 41 YEARS R/A-G-6 ANNAPURNA ARCADE, B.H.ROAD, TUMKUR-572 102.
44. V.SHANMUGHAM S/O V.VISHWANATH, AGE 36 YEARS R/A-830, HOSA ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE-560 100.
45. A.RAVINDRAN S/O E.APPAKURUP, AGE 49 YEARS, R/O NO.5, VARADARAJAPURAM, 4TH CROSS STREET, PALLIKARANAI, CHENNAI-600 100. ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI VINAYAKA B, ADV. FOR SRI ABHIJIT HARANAHALLI, ADV.] AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 00, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER RAMANAGAR, RAMANAGAR TALUK & DISTRICT-562 109.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR [ADMINISTRATION] PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 2ND FLOOR, B.M. ROAD PANCHAYAT BHAWAN RAMANAGARA TOWN-562159.
4. THE DIRECTOR [PRIMARY EDUCATION] PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001.
5. THE COMMISSIONER PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001.
[CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 20.08.2014]. …RESPONDENTS [BY SMT PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA.] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER/NOTICE DATED 13.02.2014, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No.2, VIDE ANNEXURE-A; DECLARE THAT THE KARNATAKA EDUCATION ACT, 1983, & RIGHT OF CHILDREN TO FREE AND COMPULSORY EDUCATION ACT, 2009 ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO A GURUKUL LIKE THE 1ST PETITIONER WHERE EMPHASIS IS GIVEN ON RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTIONS; AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for the official respondents.
2. The petitioner No.1 is the Gurukul and the petitioner Nos.2 to 45 are parents of the students studying in the Gurukul, run by the petitioner No.1. The petitioners have challenged the notice dated 13.02.2014 issued by the respondent No.2 at Annexure- A inter alia seeking a declaration that the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 ['Act' for short] and Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 are not applicable to a Gurukul run by the petitioner No.1 where emphasis is given on religious instructions and further seeks for a direction to the respondents to consider the applications filed by the petitioner No.1 to grant permission to start new school [Annexure-F to F2].
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners restricts the claim to the prayer Nos.1 and 2 and fairly submits that the prayer No.3 does not survive for consideration at this stage.
4. It is the contention of the petitioners that the first petitioner – Gurukul was started in the year 2006 by the devotees inspired by Paramahamsa Nithyananda to revive the unique ancient Vedic system of holistic education. In addition to the existing Gurukul, the petitioner No.1 decided to start a regular school and filed an application for registration and the same came to be rejected. Subsequently, the petitioner No.1 appears to have filed application seeking permission to start regular school for standard I to X. The second respondent has directed to close down the Gurukul and to shift the students of the school run by the petitioner No.1 without obtaining the requisite permission from the department, to any other authorized school within a period of seven days from the date of the receipt of the notice, failing which criminal action will be initiated in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
5. Learned counsel Sri.Vinayaka.B, appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Annexure-F series was filed by the petitioner No.1 by inadvertence in the name of Nithyananda Gurukula, Bidadi seeking permission to start the school from I to X standard. Noticing the same, subsequently appropriate application has been filed by the Nithyananda Vidyalaya seeking permission to start a new primary school by name Nithyananda Vidyalaya for the academic year 2018-19. In view of the same, Annexures-F to F2 have become redundant and does not survive for consideration. In other words, the petitioners are not pressing the third relief sought in the writ petitions.
6. As regards the Gurukul run by the petitioner No.1, it is submitted that in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan V/s. Union of India and Another1, where the institution predominantly provides religious instructions like Madrasas, Vedic Pathshalas etc. and do not provide formal secular education, they are exempted from the applicability of the Act. The Act, therefore, does not interfere with the protection guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and the provisions in the Act in no way prevent the giving of religious education to students who wish to take religious education in addition to primary education. Hence, seeks for a declaration that the Act and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 are not 1 [2012] 6 SCC 1 applicable to a Gurukul. It is also submitted that Section 2[27] of the Act also makes it clear that the provisions of the said Act are not applicable relating to the giving, providing or imparting only religious instruction, but not any other instruction; or imparting instruction for which there is no approved syllabi or course of studies or Government or University Examination.
7. It is further submitted that the Annexure-A though styled as notice, is an order passed by the Block Education Officer, directing the petitioner No.1 to shift the students studying in the school run by the petitioner No.1 but according to learned counsel for the petitioner no students are studying in Class I to Class X as contemplated in the order. Hence, the directions of the Block Education Officer to shift the students studying from I to X standard in the petitioner No.1’s school as directed would not arise. The students studying in Gurukul cannot be construed as the students studying from I to X standard.
8. Learned Additional Government Advocate having filed the statement of objections on behalf of the respondents, supports the impugned notice. It is submitted that the first petitioner’s institution is running I to X standard classes unauthorizedly without obtaining any permission from the competent authority and even without registering the institution as contemplated under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. It is submitted that the application filed by the petitioners seeking for permission to start the school for imparting education to the students from I to X standard has been rejected based on the Three Men Committee report. Hence, the petitions do not merit any consideration.
9. I have given careful consideration to the respective arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
10. The impugned notice at Annexure-A though directs the petitioner No.1 to shift the students studying in I to X standard to the authorized schools having permission to run the classes, the gist of the said notice indicates that the application filed by the petitioner No.1 seeking permission to run classes for the academic year 2014-15 from I to X standard has been rejected. It is also observed that the petitioner No.1 is imparting education to the students from Class I to X without obtaining necessary permission and registration from the competent authority. If the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners to be considered, no such classes are conducted for the students from Class I to Class X relating to the academic year 2014-15. On the other hand, permission sought by the petitioners to start the classes for the Class I to X has been rejected. If so, there is no occasion for the petitioner No.1 to shift the students studying in Classes I to X unauthorizedly to any other institution as directed by the Block Education Officer.
11. However, these factual aspects cannot be considered under the writ jurisdiction. It is for the petitioner No.1 to clarify/establish before the Block Education Officer that the students getting religious education in the Gurukula cannot be confused or treated as students getting education from class I to X. In the circumstances, the petitioner No.1 shall file reply/objections before the Block Education Officer in as much as students pursuing religious education in the petitioner No.1’s institution are exempted under the provisions of the Act.
12. In such circumstances, declaration sought by the petitioners would be premature unless it is established that the petitioner No.1 – religious institution is imparting religious instructions in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan supra, to get exempted from the provisions of the Act. No such declaration merely considering the point of law sans the cogent material evidence can be issued at this stage.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petitions stand disposed of to construe the Annexure-A as a show cause notice and the petitioner No.1 shall file objections/reply to the same with necessary material evidence within a period of three weeks from today and the same shall be considered by the Block Education Officer in accordance with law, after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
The said decision shall be taken by the official respondent – Block Education Officer in an expedite manner in any event not later than six weeks from the date of filing of reply/objections to the notice at Annexure-A to the writ petitions.
It is made clear that if the petitioners establish that the school running by them is a religious institution – a Gurkul and not imparting education from Class I to X in accordance with the syllabi prescribed under the Rules and the Act, the official respondent – Block Education Officer shall drop the proceedings initiated against the petitioner No.1.
It is made clear that without being influenced by the observations made herein above, the authorities shall consider the fresh application filed by the Nithyananda Vidyalaya seeking permission to start a new primary school for the academic year 2018-19 in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petitions stand disposed of.
NC.
Sd/- JUDGE