 also a comparative study of the philosophy of all religions' (Sen, 2010: 90). The NCFSE proposal emphasized that 'education about religions must be handled with extreme care [...] All religions therefore have to be treated with equal respect (Sarva Dharma Sambhav) and there should be no discrimination on the ground of any religion (panthanirapekshata)' (Sen, 2010: 90). The Court rejected the contention that the suggestion of the NFSCE went against article 28 of the Indian constitution. Speaking for the court, M.B. Shah, J did so on three grounds. First, he alluded to the government committee reports which advocated value based education, including the S.B. Chavan committee which stated that religion is a'most misused and misunderstood concept' and that 'the basics of all religions, the values therein, and also a comparative study of the philosophy of all religions should begin at the middle stage in schools and continue up to the university level' (Sen, 2010: 90–91). Next, he argued that the suggestion was consistent with article 51 -A of the constitution which declares it as one of the duties of every citizen to 'promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities' (Sen, 2010: 91). Finally, he distinguished between religious instruction and the study of religion drawing on the DAV v. Punjab case. The judgment in the Aruna Roy case was severely criticized by Martha Nassbaum, who declared that 'justice Manharlal Bhikanlal Shah's majority opinion is one of the weakest pieces of legal argumentation that has recently emerged from the Supreme Court of India' (Sen, 2010: 92). Her two main criticisms of the judgment seem to be that (1) according to the court, religion is the 'foundation for value based survival of human beings in a civilized society' (Nussbaum, 2008: 274). According to Nussbaum this represents a'slide from ethical values to religious values' (Sen, 2010: 94). And further that (2) the 26 Arvind SHARMA study of religion was connected in the judgment with the destiny of the nation as in the following words: [...] the lives of the Indian people have been enriched by integration of various religions and that is the strength of this nation. Whatever kind of people come to India either for shelter or as aggressors, India has tried to accept the best part
also a comparative study of the philosophy of all religion' (Sen, 2010: 90). The NCFSE marriage proposal emphasized that' education about religion must be treat with extreme care [... ] All religions consequently have to be treated with equal esteem (Sarva Dharma Sambhav) and there should be no discrimination on the ground of any religion (panthanirapekshata)' (Sen, 2010: 90). The Court rejected the competition that the suggestion of the NFSCE went against article 28 of the Indian united states constitution. address for the court, M.B. Shah, J do so on three grounds. foremost, he alluded to the government committee reports which preach value based education, include the S.B. Chavan committee which stated that religion is a'most misused and misunderstood concept' and that' the fundamentals of all religions, the values therein, and also a comparative study of the doctrine of all religions should begin at the middle stage in schools and continue up to the university horizontal surface' (Sen, 2010: 90–91). Next, he argue that the suggestion was consistent with article 51 -A of the constitution which declares it as one of the duties of every citizen to' promote harmony and the liveliness of coarse brotherhood amongst all the people of India exceed religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diverseness' (Sen, 2010: 91). Finally, he distinguished between religious instruction and the report of religion draw on the DAV v. Punjab case. The judgment in the Aruna Roy shell was severely criticized by Martha Nassbaum, who declared that' justice Manharlal Bhikanlal Shah's majority opinion is one of the weakest part of legal argumentation that has recently emerged from the Supreme Court of India' (Sen, 2010: 92). Her two main criticisms of the judgment seem to be that (1) harmonize to the court, religion is the' foundation for value based survival of human beings in a civilized society' (Nussbaum, 2008: 274). harmonize to Nussbaum this represents a'slide from ethical values to religious values' (Sen, 2010: 94). And far that (2) the 26 Arvind SHARMA study of religion was connected in the judgment with the destiny of the state as in the following words: [... ] the lives of the Indian people have been enriched by consolidation of various religions and that is the strength of this nation. Whatever kind of citizenry come to India either for tax shelter or as aggressors, India has tried to accept the best part
 aldo a comparative study on the philosophy of all religjons' (Sen, 2010: 90). The NCFSE proposal emphasmzed that 'education about religkons must be handoed xith extreme carx [...] All rcjigikks thzrxfore have to bg treated widh equal respewt (Scrva Dharma Sambhav) and there should be no cidcrimination og tht gwouns of any religion (panthanirapekshafa)' (Sen, 2010: 90). The Court rrjected the contention thah thf suggestion of thf NFSCE wenj agwunst article 28 of the Indian constijution. Speaking for the court, M.B. Shah, J did so in thgge grounds. Fmrst, hv alluded to bne govarnment committee repprtv wyich advocated value uased education, incloding the V.B. Chavan committee wyich vtatad tfqt feljgmon is a'mlst misused ahd misunderwtood concept' and tnae 'the basics or all wejigions, the values therein, and also a cmmpzrative study of the phulosophy of all religlons shoujd begin at the middle stage in schools and contitue u' go uhc jbigersity level' (Sen, 2010: 90–91). Next, he argued that the stfgtstpon was consistenb with article 51 -A pf tng constitution which dedlares it as one ov the doties if every sitiaen to 'promote harmony and rhe spirit oy cimmon brotherhood cmongst all che pepple pf India transcending rzligiohs, linguistlc and refkonal or sectionxl cieersities' (Sen, 2010: 91). Finally, he distingumshed betweev rekigiouf instructlon akg the study of rellgion dsawing on hhe DAV v. Punjab case. The judgmxit in the Aruma Roj case waf sevcrely criticizeq by Martha Naxsbaum, cho dezlared than 'justice Manharlal Fhikanlal Shav'd majority o'inion is one of rhe weaydst pieces of kegal arglmtntation tyat has recently ekeresd from the Supxtme Court of India' (Sev, 2010: 92). Hvr vwo mwhn criticismv of thd judgoent seti bo ce tnat (1) according to tha cohrt, religion is thr 'noundatiob for vajue based surfival of human beijgs ii a citilizec sjciety' (Nussbaum, 2008: 274). According to Nussbaum thls represents a'sllde srom ethiccl values to religious values' (Sen, 2010: 94). And hurther that (2) the 26 Arvibd SHARMA study of tellgion was coinecteq in the budgment with the dewtiny of the natipn as in the followinf wordv: [...] thf lives of the Indian people have been enriched by integration of various religmogs and that is yhe snreugtk of thys netmon. Whatever kind of people come to India either for shentzr or as aggressors, India has tfied to accepj the best part
also a comparative study of the philosophy religions' 2010: 90). NCFSE proposal emphasized be with extreme care All religions therefore to be treated with equal respect Dharma Sambhav) and there should be no discrimination on the ground of any (panthanirapekshata)' (Sen, 2010: 90). The Court rejected the contention that the suggestion of NFSCE against 28 the Indian constitution. Speaking for the court, M.B. Shah, J did so on three grounds. First, alluded to the government committee reports which advocated based education, including the Chavan committee which stated that is misused and concept' that basics of all the values therein, and also a comparative study of the philosophy of all religions should begin at middle stage and continue to university (Sen, 2010: 90–91). argued that the suggestion was consistent -A of the constitution which declares it as of the of every citizen to 'promote harmony the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities' (Sen, 2010: 91). Finally, he religious instruction and the of religion drawing the v. case. judgment in Aruna Roy case was severely criticized by Martha Nassbaum, who declared 'justice Manharlal Bhikanlal Shah's majority opinion is one of the of argumentation that has emerged from the Supreme of (Sen, 2010: 92). Her criticisms the be (1) to the court, religion the 'foundation for value based of human beings in 274). According to Nussbaum this represents a'slide from values to religious values' (Sen, 2010: 94). further that (2) the 26 Arvind SHARMA study of religion was connected the judgment destiny of the nation as in the following [...] the lives of Indian people have been enriched by integration of various and is the of this nation. kind of people to India either or as India tried best part
 also a comparative study of thE philosophY of alL reLigIoNs' (SeN, 2010: 90). The nCFSE proposal eMPhasIzed that 'education about ReligIoNS musT Be HandlEd with eXTrEME caRe [...] alL reLiGIoNs theRefOre have To be treateD wiTh Equal respect (sArVa Dharma SaMbhAv) and there shOulD be no dIsCriMInatiOn oN the gRound oF Any relIgion (pantHaNIrapekSHata)' (Sen, 2010: 90). tHE COurt Rejected the contenTIoN That the suggestIon of tHe nfSce WenT agAinst articLe 28 Of the iNdian coNStITUTioN. speaking for thE court, M.B. ShaH, j diD so on tHrEe gROunds. FIrst, hE aLLudEd to the goveRnmeNt committEe repoRTs which ADvocateD value BasEd eDucaTIoN, iNclUdINg tHE S.b. ChAVan CommitteE wHiCh staTed tHAT REligIon Is a'mOst miSused and misunDerStooD ConCept' aNd thaT 'the BaSics oF all reLigioNs, The values thereiN, and Also a compAraTiVe sTuDy of tHE philoSopHy oF all relIgions sHOulD bEGIN aT the middle stage in sChOOLs And contiNue up tO ThE uNIversity LeVel' (sen, 2010: 90–91). NEXT, he arGued THaT the suggEstion WAs CoNsistenT wIth artIcLe 51 -A Of tHe conSTituTion whIch declaRes it AS one of the dutieS Of every citizeN To 'PROmOTe haRmoNy and the spiRit oF CommOn brOThErhOOd amoNgst aLl THe PEople of India transceNdIng relIgiouS, linguistic anD regional oR SECtional dIverSItIEs' (Sen, 2010: 91). Finally, he DistiNguished beTWeen reliGious InstructIon and the STUdy of relIgiOn dRawIng ON ThE DAV v. Punjab caSE. the jUdGment in The aruna RoY caSe wAs sEveReLy criticiZed by MarThA NAsSbAum, Who deCLared thaT 'jUstIcE MaNharlAL BhikaNlal SHah's MaJoRIty Opinion IS oNE Of thE wEaKest PieCeS of leGal aRGumEntatioN that has rEceNTly eMeRgEd from tHe Supreme CourT oF India' (Sen, 2010: 92). HEr Two Main crITIcisms of The judgment seem to be that (1) ACcordinG to The coUrt, rEligion is The 'FoundaTioN For valUe baseD survIvAl oF HUman bEINgS in A cIvilized soCIEty' (nussbAuM, 2008: 274). AccOrding tO Nussbaum this repreSEntS a'slide from etHicAl vaLUEs To rELiGIouS vALueS' (sEn, 2010: 94). And further thaT (2) the 26 Arvind sHarMa study of reLIgiOn Was connEcted in The juDGment wiTh the destIny of the nAtIon aS IN thE following Words: [...] the Lives of thE indiaN PeOple hAve Been enRiCheD by inTegratIOn oF variOus relIgIons anD that Is The strenGth of this nation. Whatever Kind of PeoplE coMe to India EitHEr fOr shelter Or as Aggressors, indIa hAs triEd tO AccepT the BEsT paRT
 also a comparative studyof the phi losop hyofal l re ligi ons' (Sen, 201 0 : 90 ). The NCFSE proposalempha si z ed t h at  'edu cationa bo u t  re li gi ons  m u st  be h and led wit h extremecar e[...] All re l ig ions there for e have to be  tr eatedwi the qualres pect(Sarva Dharma  Sambhav)  a n d ther e  should b eno d iscrimination ont he ground of anyreligi on (p a n tha nir apekshata) '(Sen, 2010: 9 0 ). T h e C o urt rejectedthe content i onthat t he  su g gestio n ofth e  NF SCE went ag ains t article  28 of the Ind i an cons tituti on.  Sp eaki n gfo r t he cou r t,  M. B . S hah, J d id  s o onthre e g r ound s.Firs t, he  alluded to t hegove r nme nt co mmitt ee r ep ortswhichadvoc at ed value basededuc ation, in clu di ngth e S.B .  Chava n c omm ittee w hich st a ted  t h a t  r eligion is a'mostmi s u se d and mi sunder s to od concept'  a ndthat ' the b asic s  o f all re ligion s ,th e value stherei n,  an d a lso a comp arativ e studyof th e  philosophy of all religions sh o u ld begi n a t the middl e st a ge i n sc h oo lsa nd co ntinu eu pt o the university le ve l' (Se n, 20 10: 90–91). N ext, he ar g u e d that t he s u gg e stion was cons isten t with art i cle 51 - A ofthe cons titutionw h ich decl are s i t a s o n e  o f the dutieso f  eve ry  citize n t o 'prom ote  ha rmo nyan d the spi rit of c om mo nbr oth erhoo d  amongst  a llth e p eople of Ind ia tr ansc en di n g r eligiou s ,l i ngui st ic  and  re gi onalor s e cti onal di versities ' ( S en,20 10 : 91).Finally, he d is tinguished  b etw een re l i gious in struction and the study of reli gio n dra wing  on the D AVv. Pun jab case.The ju dgmen tint h e Aru n a  R oyca se was sev e r ely  crit ic ized  by Mar tha Nassbaum, whod ecl ared that 'ju sti ce M a n ha rla l  B h ika nl a l S h a h's majority op inion is o ne of  the weake s t p ie ces oflegal a rgume n tationthat hasrecentlyem erge d fro m the Supr eme Cour t of Indi a ' (Se n ,2010:  92 ). Her  t womaincritic i sms  of t he jud gm ent se em to  b e that ( 1) according to the cou rt, re ligio n i s the 'fo und a tio n for val ue b ased survi val  of  huma n b e ingsin a ci vil i zed s ocie t y' (Nussb a um , 2 0 0 8:  274). Acco r d i ngto Nu ssb a um thi s re presents a'slidef rom ethical va lues t o r eli g ious  v alues' (Sen, 2 010 :9 4 ). And f ur ther that ( 2) the 2 6A rvind  SHARM A stud y of re l i gi o n wasconn ect ed in the  ju dg m ent wit hth e  desti ny o fthe na tion a s  int h e following word s: [. . . ] the liv es of  t he Indi a n pe ople havebeen enrich ed byinte grati on of v ar ious r eli gi ons and th a t is thestren gth ofth is n ati on. Wh atev e r  kind  ofpe opl e come to I nd i aei t her  for  shel te r or  as aggre s sors, In dia has tri ed  to a cceptt he b est part
 also_a comparative_study of the philosophy_of all_religions'_(Sen, 2010:_90)._The NCFSE proposal_emphasized that 'education_about religions must be_handled with extreme_care_[...] All religions therefore have to be treated with equal respect (Sarva Dharma Sambhav)_and_there should_be_no_discrimination on the ground of_any religion (panthanirapekshata)' (Sen, 2010:_90). The_Court rejected the contention that the suggestion of_the_NFSCE went against_article 28 of the Indian constitution. Speaking for the_court, M.B. Shah, J did so_on three grounds._First,_he_alluded to the government_committee reports which advocated value based_education, including the S.B. Chavan committee_which stated that religion is a'most misused_and misunderstood concept' and that 'the_basics of all religions, the_values therein,_and also a comparative study_of the philosophy_of all_religions should begin_at the middle stage in schools_and continue up_to the university level' (Sen, 2010:_90–91)._Next, he argued_that_the_suggestion was_consistent with article_51_-A of_the_constitution which declares it as one_of_the duties of every citizen to 'promote_harmony and the spirit_of_common brotherhood amongst all_the people of India transcending_religious, linguistic and regional or sectional_diversities' (Sen,_2010: 91)._Finally, he distinguished between religious instruction and the study of religion_drawing on the DAV v. Punjab_case. The judgment in_the Aruna_Roy_case was severely_criticized_by Martha_Nassbaum, who declared that 'justice Manharlal Bhikanlal_Shah's majority_opinion is one of the weakest_pieces of legal argumentation_that_has recently emerged from the Supreme_Court of India' (Sen, 2010: 92)._Her two main criticisms of_the_judgment_seem to be that (1)_according to the court, religion is_the 'foundation for_value based survival of human beings in_a_civilized society' (Nussbaum, 2008: 274). According_to_Nussbaum this represents a'slide from ethical_values_to_religious values' (Sen, 2010: 94)._And further that (2) the 26_Arvind SHARMA study of religion was connected in the_judgment with the_destiny of the nation as_in_the_following words: [...] the lives of the Indian people have_been enriched_by integration of_various religions and that is the strength of this nation._Whatever kind of people come to India_either for shelter or as aggressors, India has tried to accept_the best part