The Delhi High Court on Thursday instructed the Union Government to consider a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that requests a clear distinction between "Dharma" and "Religion" and proposes the inclusion of a dedicated chapter on the topic in the curriculum for primary and secondary schools.

A division bench, consisting of Chief Justice-designate Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, directed the Union Ministries of Culture and Education to address the plea in accordance with the law as swiftly as possible.

The PIL was moved by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.

“Courts do not act as theological or philosophical authorities. There is a slight mistake over here. You are mistaking us to be an expert on international banking transactions and philosophers and theological experts. We are no one to get into all this…. I don't know why these petitions are coming to this court. We have nothing to do with this,” the court told Upadhyay.

The bench further noted that the Court cannot intervene in the matter, as it falls under the jurisdiction of the Central Government to decide.

“The Ministry will decide this. We are not getting into all this.…. You want some chapter in the school curriculum. We don't decide school curriculum. If we start inserting chapters in school curriculum then I think thats the end of the matter,” the bench said.

The Court observed that Upadhyay was essentially asking it to engage in a semantic exercise and assume the role of a theological and philosophical authority to define the distinction between Dharma and Religion, which extends beyond its constitutional mandate.

“The language, its usage and meaning are products of an organic evolution of society, and they cannot be dictated by courts, except when the same is obscene or contrary to the spirit and letter of the law,” the court said.

It ordered: “Consequently, the present petition is directed to be treated as a representation by the Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Education and to decide it in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.”

Upadhyay sought a directive for the Centre and Delhi Government to incorporate the subject into the school curriculum, aiming to "educate the masses and curb religion-based hatred and hate speech."

The plea also requested the Union and Delhi Governments to adopt the correct interpretation of "religion," which Upadhyay argues should be "Panth" or "Sampradaya" rather than using "Dharma" as a synonym, in official documents such as birth certificates, Aadhar cards, driving licenses, bank accounts, and birth and death certificates.

“Petitioner respectfully submits that the Dharma and Religion have totally different meanings but Centre and State Government Officials and Employees not only use the term Dharma as a synonym of Religion in documents like Birth Certificate, AADHAAR Card, School Certificate, Ration Card, Driving Licence, Domicile Certificate, Death Certificate and Bank Account etc but also in their verbal and written communication,” the plea stated.

Upadhyay contended that Dharma is not synonymous with Religion. He argued that Dharma is an "ordering principle" that transcends individual faith, methods of worship, or the conventional understanding of religion, offering complete freedom in ethical norms and representing an "eternal journey from being to becoming."

“Each institution of the society, each individual, almost intuitively knew where to draw the line, where to define the limit. Tolerance is, therefore, integral to 'Dharma', plurality is inherent in it. This tolerance and plurality do not find space in the concept of religion,” the plea read.

It added: “Different saintly persons born in different parts of India, in different times, speaking different languages guided people to lead Dharmic life in their own ways. Being true saints, they merely described Dharma to the best of their ability and people grasped according to their own mental capacity. No one ever forced anything on anyone. The silly concept of 'conversion' came to India from outside as Christians and Muslims arrived.”

Upadhyay's plea further argued that "secular Western democracies" evolved to promote free thought and expression, which led to the rejection of the "stifling clergy dictatorship."

“The Islamic societies, on the other hand, continue to remain stifled by insane dictates of the clergy class for good reasons. The mullah has become even more powerful than Mohammad or Allah and turned the “religion of peace” into a cult of violence and terrorism. This is what happens when insane amount of “workless” petrodollars fall in unworthy hands of cocky Wahhabi/Deobandi mullahs devoid of slightest sense of morality,” the plea added.

Case Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS