 (Mahadevan, 1971: 283). The next commission to address this issue was what came to be called the Kothari Commission, an education commission (1964–1966) which was chaired by Dr. K.S. Kothari. The Kothari Commission made an important distinction between'religious education' and 'education about religion', and explained the distinction as follows: The former is largely concerned with the teaching of the tenets and practices of a particular religion, generally in the form in which the religious group envisages them, whereas the latter is a study of religions and religious thought from a broad point of view - the eternal quest of the spirit. [...]. It makes the point that it is necessary for a multi -religious democratic State to promote a tolerant study of religions so that its citizens can understand each other better and live amicably together (Sen, 2010: 93). We have so far pursued the matter largely from an educational perspective. The matter, however, took a legal turn in 2002 and we shall devote the next section to exploring this dimension of the issue. PART IV It was argued before the supreme court in 1971, in the case DAV College v. Punjab that the provision for teaching the philosophy of Guru Nanak infringed upon article 28, namely, that 'no religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds' (Sen, 2010: 93). The case for introducing the study... 25 In pronouncing its judgement, the Court made a distinction between religious instruction and the study of religions as follows: 'To provide for academic study of life and teaching or the philosophy and culture of any great saint of India in relation to or the impact on Indian and world civilizations cannot be considered as making provision for religious instruction' (Sen, 2010: 91). In other words, the Court was outlining a distinction between the confessional and the non -confessional or academic study of religion. The situation got clarified further in the Aruna Roy v. Union of India case of 2002. The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) is a well -known governmental body associated with formulating national policy on education. When the Hindu nationalist party known as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was heading a coalition government at the centre, it came up with a National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE) in 2000, which asserted the need for 'not religious education but education about religions, their basics, the values inherent therein and
(Mahadevan, 1971: 283). The next commission to address this issue was what do to be call the Kothari Commission, an education commission (1964–1966) which was chaired by Dr. K.S. Kothari. The Kothari Commission make an important distinction between'religious department of education' and' education about religion', and explained the distinction as come: The former is largely concerned with the education of the tenets and practices of a finical religion, by and large in the form in which the religious group envisages them, whereas the latter is a study of religions and religious thought from a wide point of view - the eternal pursuit of the spirit. [... ]. It makes the period that it is necessary for a multi -religious democratic State to promote a kind study of religions so that its citizens can understand each other well and live amicably together (Sen, 2010: 93). We have so far pursued the matter largely from an educational position. The topic, however, drive a legal turn in 2002 and we shall devote the next section to exploring this dimension of the issue. PART IV It was argued before the supreme court in 1971, in the event DAV College v. Punjab that the provision for teaching the doctrine of Guru Nanak conflict upon article 28, namely, that' no religious teaching shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds' (Sen, 2010: 93). The case for introducing the study... 25 In pronounce its judgement, the Court made a distinction between religious instruction and the study of religions as succeed:' To provide for academic study of life and teaching or the doctrine and culture of any bang-up saint of India in relation to or the impact on Indian and world civilizations cannot be regard as making provision for religious instruction' (Sen, 2010: 91). In early words, the Court was draft a distinction between the confessional and the non -confessional or academic study of religion. The position got clarified far in the Aruna Roy v. Union of India case of 2002. The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) is a well -known governmental body associate with formulating home policy on education. When the Hindu nationalist party known as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was heading a coalition politics at the centre, it came up with a National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE) in 2000, which asserted the indigence for' not religious education but department of education about religions, their basics, the values implicit in therein and
 (Majadevan, 1971: 283). The next commirsion to address this mssue wzs what zame to be called the Kotharm Conmissuon, an education commirsion (1964–1966) whpch was cyairtd by Dr. K.S. Kothacj. The Kothari Gommivwion made an ikportant dhstinction betfedn'xeligious education' and 'education abjut reloglon', and explaiged uhe disfpngtion as follows: The former is lzrgely boncerned with thr teaching of the tenets ajd pgactices of a partlcular relition, tenerally in the form pu which the religious group envisages them, wherzas the latjze id a study of relidions and religious dhought from a broad ioint of view - the eternal quxst of the spirit. [...]. Ij makes tha 'oint that it is necewsqry fmr a mulgu -rdlifipua demofravic State tk promote a tolerant study of tejpbions so thaf its sieizens can understand each other better ans live amicably togethee (Sen, 2010: 93). We have so fat pursued ehe matter largely from an educational perspectiva. The oatuev, fiwfver, took a legal turn in 2002 and we shall devotq tne next section bo exploring this cilemfion of the irsue. PCDT IV It was argued hefore jhe supreme couwt im 1971, in the case DAV College c. Punjab than thw provision for tecching the pkilosokhy of Guru Nanak infringed u'on arficle 28, namepy, that 'nk religious instrjctpon vhall be provided in any equcationao inxtitutiun wnolly iaintained out of State funds' (Sen, 2010: 93). The cdse for inhroducing the study... 25 In pronounrmng its judgekett, nhe Court made a distinctiog between reliyious inftrucgion and tge studb of religiogs as follows: 'Jo provide foc academis stydy if life xnd teaching ot the philosophy ane culture of any gveat rzint of India iu twlation to or yhe im[abt pn Hndian and wmrld cixolizagions cannob bd comsidered as making psoviaion for religious ikstructiob' (Sen, 2010: 91). Yn other wordx, the Court was ouulininj a dirtincyiog between the confessional and the non -fonnessional or wcadcmic study of xeligion. The situation got clarified furvher in the Aruna Roy v. Union of India casg on 2002. The Natioial Cotncil of Aducational Research and Training (NCEVT) is a well -known govsrnmendal bldy associated with formulating national policy on education. When the Hineu natmogalist partg knpwn av che Bharaeiya Oanata Party (BJP) eas heading a coalition governmxnt at the czntre, it came up with a Natiomau Curriculum Wramework for School Edudation (NVFSE) in 2000, which asserted the neec for 'not religious educstion bur edudation abont religions, their bssics, che vaoues inyerekt therein and
(Mahadevan, 1971: 283). The next commission to issue what came be called the (1964–1966) was chaired by K.S. Kothari. The Commission made an important distinction between'religious and 'education about religion', and explained the distinction as follows: The former is concerned with the teaching of the tenets and practices of a particular religion, in form which religious group envisages them, whereas the latter is a study of religions and religious thought from broad point of view - the eternal quest the spirit. [...]. It the point that it is for multi -religious State promote tolerant study of so that its citizens can understand each other better and live amicably together (Sen, 2010: 93). We so far matter largely an perspective. matter, however, took turn in 2002 and we shall section to exploring this dimension of the issue. IV It argued before the supreme court in in the case DAV College v. Punjab that provision for teaching the philosophy of Guru Nanak infringed upon article 28, namely, that 'no shall be provided in educational institution wholly out State (Sen, 93). The for introducing the study... 25 In pronouncing its judgement, the Court a distinction between religious instruction and the study of religions 'To for academic study life and teaching or philosophy culture of any great India relation impact Indian world civilizations cannot be as making provision for religious (Sen, 2010: 91). In outlining a distinction between the confessional and the -confessional or academic study of religion. The got clarified further in the Aruna Roy v. Union of India case 2002. The of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) is a -known governmental body associated formulating national policy on education. When the Hindu nationalist known the Bharatiya Party (BJP) was a coalition government the centre, it with a Curriculum for in 2000, which asserted the need 'not education but education about religions, basics, inherent therein and
 (Mahadevan, 1971: 283). The next commissioN to address This iSsuE waS wHat cAme tO be called the KoTHari commission, an education cOmmisSiON (1964–1966) whiCH wAs chaIred by DR. k.S. kOThaRi. thE KoThARi commiSsiOn made aN important DisTiNction betweeN'ReLigious eduCatIon' and 'educatIon About rElIgiON', and eXplAined The disTInctioN as followS: THE formeR Is largeLY CoNcerNed with the teachinG Of THe tenets and praCtices Of A PaRTIcuLar Religion, geNeRally IN the forM In WHICh tHE religious groUp envisages THem, WhereaS tHe lATter is A studY oF RelIgions and reLigiOus thoughT from a BRoad poiNT of view - The eteRnaL quEst oF ThE sPirIt. [...]. iT maKEs The POinT that it iS nEcEssarY for A MULTi -reLigIous DemocRatic State to pRomOte a TOleRant sTudy oF relIgIons sO that iTs citIzEns can understanD eacH other betTer AnD liVe AmicaBLy togeTheR (SeN, 2010: 93). We have So far puRSueD tHE MAtTer largely from an edUcATIoNal perspEctive. tHe MaTTer, howevEr, TooK a leGAL turn In 2002 anD We Shall devOte the NExT sEction tO eXploriNg ThiS diMensiON of tHe issuE. PART IV IT was aRGued before the sUPreme court in 1971, iN ThE CAsE dAV COllEge v. Punjab tHat tHE proVisiON fOr tEAchinG the pHiLOsOPhy of Guru Nanak infriNgEd upon ArticLe 28, namely, that 'nO religious INSTruction ShalL Be PRovided in any edUcatiOnal institUTion wholLy maiNtained oUt of State FUNds' (Sen, 2010: 93). ThE caSe fOr iNtrODUcIng the study... 25 In PROnouNcIng its jUdgEment, thE CoUrt MadE a dIsTinction bEtween reLiGiOuS iNstRuctiON and the sTuDy oF rEliGions AS folloWs: 'To pRoviDe FoR AcaDemic stUDy OF Life AnD tEachIng Or The phIlosOPhy And cultUre of any gReaT SainT oF INdia in rElation to or thE iMpact on IndIaN anD world CIVilizatiOns cannot be considered as MAking prOviSion fOr reLigious inStrUction' (sen, 2010: 91). iN other Words, tHe CouRt Was OUTliniNG A dIstInCtion betweEN The ConfeSsIonaL and the Non -confessional or aCAdeMic study of relIgiOn. ThE SItUatIOn GOt cLaRIfiED Further in the AruNa Roy v. UnioN oF inDia case of 2002. THE NaTiOnal CouNcil of EDucatIOnal ResEarch and TRaining (NCeRt) is a WELl -kNown governMental boDy associaTEd witH FoRmulaTinG natioNaL poLicy oN educaTIon. when tHe HindU nAtionaList pArTy known aS the Bharatiya Janata PartY (BJP) waS headIng A coalitioN goVErnMent at the CentRe, it came up WitH a NAtionAl CURricuLum FRAmEwoRK for SChooL education (ncFsE) iN 2000, WHiCh asserted tHE NEed For 'noT reLIgious EducAtion but education ABout religions, tHeir BASicS, thE ValuEs Inherent thereiN anD
 (Mahadevan, 1971: 283). T he next co mmiss ion  to  a ddre ss t his issue wasw hatcame to be called theKotha ri Comm i ss ion,an educ a ti o n  co mm is sio n( 19 64–19 66)  whichwas chaire d b yDr. K.S. Kot h ar i. The Kot har i Commission  ma de anim por t ant d ist incti on bet w een're ligious e du c ation' and 'ed u c at ionabout religion',a nd explained thedistin ct i on a s f oll ows: The f or mer i s  largel y  c o n c ern e d with the te aching of t h e t enetsan d p r actice s ofap art icular reli gion , general ly int he form in whic h therel igi ousg ro up  en vi s age s  t hem ,  wh ereas th ela tteris a s t u dy o f r elig ionsand religious  th ough t  fr om abroad  poi nt  of v iew -the e te rnal quest of t he s pirit. [. ..] .Itma kes t h e poin t t hat  it isnecessa r y f or a mu lti -religious dem oc r a ti c Stateto pro m ot ea  toleran tstu dy o f relig ions so  that it s citi z en scan und er standea choth er be t terand li ve amica bly t o gether (Sen, 2 0 10: 93). We h a ve s of ar p urs ued the mat terl arge ly f r om  an educa tiona lp er s pective. The matter ,howeve r, to ok a legal tu rn in 2002 a n d we sha ll d e vo t e the next sec tionto explori n g this d imens ion of t he issue. P ART IV I t w asarg ued b ef ore the supre m e  cou rt  in 197 1,in thecas e D AVCol le ge v. Pun jab that  t he  p ro vis ion f o r teachi ng  th ephi losop h y of G uru N anak  i nf r ing ed upon ar t i cle28 ,name ly,  t hat ' no r e lig ious in struction  sh a ll b epr ovidedin any educat io nal instit ut ion  wholl y maintain ed out of State funds'( Sen, 20 10:  93).  The  case for  in troduc ing the st udy...  25 I npro n o uncin g it s j ud gement, th e Cou rt ma de  a d istinct ion between religi o usinstruction a ndthes t ud y o f  r e lig io n s a s follows: 'To pr ovide forac a de mic studyo f l if e and t eaching  or t h e philo sophy and  cultureof  any g rea t saint of  India i n relatio n  to o r  t he im pac t on I nd ian  andworldc ivi lizat ions c an not be  cons id ered asmaking provision for re ligiou s ins tru ction' (S en, 201 0: 91). I n ot her words,  th e C ourtwas outli ning adis t incti on b e tween the co nfe s s io nal and the n o n - confe ssi o nal or  aca demic study of re l igion. The sit uati o n  go t c l arif ie d further in t heAr u n a Roy v.  U nion of Ind ia caseof 2002.  The N ationa l Counc i l  o f  Educa tion alResearchand  T r aining(N CE R T) isa we ll  -know n gove r nmen t a l body associate d wit h formu l ati ng na ti onal po l icyon educati on. When th e Hind u na tiona list pa rt y know n a sthe Bharat i ya Janata  Part y (BJP)  w as h ead ing acoal i t ion g over nm ent  at the c e n tr e ,it cam e up  with  a  Nat ional Cur r iculum F ram e work fo rSch o o l Educ a ti o n  (NCFSE) i n 2 000,w h ich assert e d th e  n e ed fo r 'not  relig ious ed u cat io n but e duc a t ion about  religion s , t he ir b asics, t he  val ue s i nh erent therein a nd
 (Mahadevan,_1971: 283)._The next commission to_address this_issue_was what_came_to be called_the Kothari Commission,_an education commission (1964–1966)_which was chaired_by_Dr. K.S. Kothari. The Kothari Commission made an important distinction between'religious education' and 'education_about_religion', and_explained_the_distinction as follows: The former_is largely concerned with the_teaching of_the tenets and practices of a particular religion,_generally_in the form_in which the religious group envisages them, whereas the_latter is a study of religions_and religious thought_from_a_broad point of view_- the eternal quest of the_spirit. [...]. It makes the point_that it is necessary for a multi_-religious democratic State to promote a_tolerant study of religions so_that its_citizens can understand each other_better and live_amicably together_(Sen, 2010: 93)._We have so far pursued the_matter largely from_an educational perspective. The matter, however,_took_a legal turn_in_2002_and we_shall devote the_next_section to_exploring_this dimension of the issue. PART_IV_It was argued before the supreme court_in 1971, in the_case_DAV College v. Punjab_that the provision for teaching_the philosophy of Guru Nanak infringed_upon article_28, namely,_that 'no religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution_wholly maintained out of State funds'_(Sen, 2010: 93). The_case for_introducing_the study... 25_In_pronouncing its_judgement, the Court made a distinction between_religious instruction_and the study of religions as_follows: 'To provide for_academic_study of life and teaching or_the philosophy and culture of any_great saint of India in_relation_to_or the impact on Indian_and world civilizations cannot be considered_as making provision_for religious instruction' (Sen, 2010: 91). In_other_words, the Court was outlining a_distinction_between the confessional and the non_-confessional_or_academic study of religion. The_situation got clarified further in the_Aruna Roy v. Union of India case of 2002._The National Council_of Educational Research and Training_(NCERT)_is_a well -known governmental body associated with formulating national policy_on education._When the Hindu_nationalist party known as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was_heading a coalition government at the centre,_it came up with a National Curriculum Framework for School Education_(NCFSE) in 2000, which asserted the need for_'not religious education but education about religions,_their basics, the values_inherent_therein and