The Supreme Court on Friday (April 5) stayed the Allahabad High Court’s March 22 order striking down the ‘Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004’ as unconstitutional. The apex court observed that the high court misunderstood the provisions of the act and erred in declaring it unconstitutional.
A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandracuhd, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said that the UP Madarsa Act is actually regulatory in nature, and therefore it does not breach secularism.
The court said, “In striking down the Act, the High Court prima facie misconstrued the provisions of the Act. The Act does not provide for any religious instruction. The object and purpose of the Statute is regulatory in character.”
The apex court stated that if the concern was about the quality education in the madarsas, the remedy would not lie in striking down the Madarsa Act but in issuing suitable directions to ensure that the students are not deprived of quality education.
“We are of the view that the issues raised in the petitions merit closer reflection. We are inclined to issue notice,” the Court said. The bench then issued notices to Centre and the Uttar Pradesh government on the pleas challenging the high court order.
The court was hearing five Special Leave Petitions filed against the High Court’s judgment filed by Anjum Kadari, Managers Association Madaris Arabiya(UP), All India Teachers Association Madaris Arabiya (New Delhi), Manager Association Arbi Madarsa Nai Bazar and Teachers Association Madaris Arabiya Kanpur. The Court posted the petitions for final disposal in the second week of July 2024.
Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, said that the State is accepting the High Court judgment. When Supreme Court asked why the state is not defending its own legislation after defending the same in the High Court, the SG said that after the HC judgement, the govt has decided to accept it.
The Union of India, represented by Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, also supported the Allahabad High Court judgment.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhi appeared for the Managers Association Madaris, and said that the HC judgement is affecting 17 lakh students and 10,000 teachers. He refused the High Court’s observation that modern subjects were not taught in the Madrasas and submitted that Maths, Science, Hindi, English etc are taught.
The petitioners also argued that teaching religion means religious instruction and it violates secularism. “Religious education does not mean religious instruction,” Singhvi argued. The petitioners further said that all madarsas in Uttar Pradesh are not funded by the state, and that the embargo of Article 28 will apply only if the institution is “wholly maintained out of State funds”.
On 22 March, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court pronounced the ‘UP Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004’ as unconstitutional, saying that it infringes the fundamental principles of secularism. While holding the legislation to be ultra vires, the Division, led by Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, also instructed the Uttar Pradesh government to devise a plan to accommodate students currently enrolled in madrasas in the formal education system.
The High Court’s decision came in response to a writ petition filed by Anshuman Singh Rathore challenging the authority of the UP Madarsa Board, as well as objecting to Madarsa’s management by the Minority Welfare Department.
