In recent years, Article 23 of the Social Education Law (hereafter referred to as "Article 23") has been used as a basis for imposing restrictions on the learning activities of citizens who use kominkan. Some of them raised the objection regarding the interpretation of "Article 23". There have also been cases in which citizen groups have filed lawsuits in court, claiming that the restrictions on these activities by kominkan are illegal. When did the article begin to be interpreted as a basis for restricting these learning activities The aim of this paper probe this question. We would like to examine reports on the article published in the "KOMINKAN GEPPO."

This paper is structured as follows:

Introduction: Research Objectives and Methods

I．Issues surrounding “Article 23”

II．Questions and answers about the article found in the KOMINKAN GEPPO

　　1) Discussions before the enactment of the Social Education Law

　　2) Discussions after the enactment of the law

III．Background of interpretations by kominkan staff regarding the article

　　1) Influence of Article 212 of the former Local Autonomy Law

　　2) Influence of the "political neutrality theory" of education

The author’s conclusion is as follows: Kominkan system which established before the enactment of the Social Education Law (1949), existed in an underdeveloped state. Based upon that the theory of public facility management facilities, grounded in Article 212 of the former Local Autonomy Law (established in 1947) and the theory of education neutrality, they control over social education activities. Under these circumstances, interpretation of the article was distorted. I think that this erroneous interpretation continues to this day.