New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the Allahabad High Court decision declaring the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, as unconstitutional and violative of secularism.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and comprising justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the striking down of the UP Madarsa Act 2004 by Allahabad High Court is inconsistent with Article 28 (1) of the Constitution.
The apex court said the purpose of the Act is regulatory in nature and the finding of the high court that the establishment of a board breaches the principles of secularism may not be correct.
The apex court said that the high court in striking down the provisions of the Act directed the relocation of the students and this would affect 17 lakh students, "we are of the view that direction of relocation of students to other schools was not warranted".
The apex court said the high court had misconstrued provisions of the 2004 Act, as it does not provide for religious instruction and the purpose and character of the statute is regulatory in nature.
The Uttar Pradesh government told the Supreme Court that it has accepted the Allahabad High Court decision declaring the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, as unconstitutional.
The CJI queried the additional solicitor general (ASG) K M Nataraj counsel, representing the UP government, that you are not defending your legislation and pointed out that in high court the government had defended the Act. The counsel replied that the government has accepted the judgment and these students can be accommodated in regular schools and there will be no problem for any student.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing one of the petitioners, said these institutions teach a variety of subjects, some are state schools, some private, the intention here is that one which is wholly aided by state, and no religious instruction is being imparted. He said teaching the Quran by itself is a subject.
Senior advocate A M Singhvi, representing one of the petitioners, said that the high court judgment will impact 17 lakh students and 10000 teachers. Seeking a stay on the high court judgment, Singhvi said they cannot be absorbed with the academic year ending, and “this is just a farmaan, this size of UP is more than Europe, there will be chaos!”
The apex court is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Allahabad High Court decision declaring the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, as unconstitutional and violative of secularism.
On March 22, a division bench of justice Vivek Chaudhary and justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed the order on a petition filed by one Anshuman Singh Rathore challenging the constitutional validity of the Act and certain provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2012.
The high court passed the judgment months after the state government decided to survey the Islamic education institutions in the state and also formed a special investigation team (SIT) in October 2023 to probe the funding of Madarsas from abroad. Madrasas refer to institutions where Islamic studies and other education may be pursued by students.
Singhvi, representing a petitioner challenging the high court judgment, said religious education cannot mean religious instruction.
Singhvi argued it is wrong to say madrassa education doesn't have quality, isn't universal in nature, and is not broad-based. While pointing out at the apex court’s judgment in Aruna Roy vs Union of India, 2002, Singhvi stressed that religious education does not amount to religious instruction contrary to secularism and singling out the madrassas for a ban is discriminatory.
The Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the Centre, said the suspected entanglement of religion and other relevant issues must be debated. The petitioners’ counsel further argued that the regime has not been interrupted for over a century.
Singhvi also cited the presence of Hindu gurukuls and Sanskrit Pathshalas across the country. A counsel gave an example of a village in Shivamogga district, where people speak in no other language than Sanskrit. Nataraj argued that the government has made arrangements for teachers and the students would not be left in lurch.
Nataraj reiterated that about 17 lakh students can be accommodated in regular institutions and the state would have to bear financial burden to the sum of Rs 1096 crore, if the judgment was stayed.
Senior advocates P S Patwalia, Salman Khurshid, and Menaka Guruswamy also represented some of the petitioners, who have questioned the validity of the high court’s judgment.
The apex court said, “The high court has come to the conclusion that Madrassa Act 2004, violates the principle of secularism, which underlie the basic structure of the Constitution, and therefore offend Articles 14, 19…the object and purpose of the 2004 Act, is to provide for the establishment of board of madrassa education in the state…”. “The definition of the expression madrassa education is contained in section 2 (H) of the statute….education in Urdu, Arabic, Persian, Islamic studies, philosophy, and to include such other branches of learning as may be specified by the board from time to time”, said the bench.
“The object and purpose of the statutory board, which is constituted under Madrassa Act 2004, is regulatory in nature. The finding of the high court that the very establishment of the board would amount to breach of the principles of secularism appears to conflate the madrassa education with the regulatory powers which have been entrusted to the board”, said the apex court, in its order.
“Article 28 (1) of the Constitution provides that no religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution purely maintained by state funds. In striking down the provision of the 2004 Act, the high court has prima facie misconstrued the provisions of the Act. The Act per say does not provide for religious instructions in an educational institution maintained out of state funds. The object and purpose of the statutory provision is regulatory in character…”, said the apex court.
The Chief Justice said that the issues that have been raised merit closer reflection. The apex court issued notice in the matter and posted the matter for further hearing in the second week of July.
