In a shocking revelation, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has submitted before the Supreme Court of India that the education system in madarsas in India is fundamentally flawed. The commission added that the madarsas violate children’s right to education as mandated by the Constitution of India. According to NCPCR, “madarsa education severely inhibits the right to education of children in India and has no constitutional basis to subsist in terms of the Right to Education Act or under Article 21A of the Constitution.”
Darul Uloom Deoband’s influence: A pathway to extremism?
In its submission, NCPCR exposed the deep-rooted influence of Darul Uloom Deoband over madarsas. The commission described it as a “school of thought with a very strict and conservative interpretation of Sharia.” The NCPCR further stated that “it has also been alleged by Taliban extremist groups to have been influenced by the religious and political ideologies of Darul Uloom Deoband, which has a looming presence in the madarsas.” The assertion made by the Children’s Rights Commission raised concerns over the potential radicalisation of the students in madarsas.
Children deprived of formal education and basic rights
The commission pointed out that the children who study in madarsas are deprived of their fundamental rights under the Right to Education Act (RTE), 2009. They do not get access to standardised education, mid-day meals, and trained teachers. The commission highlighted, “In the absence of the RTE Act, the students studying in madarsas are also deprived of the facilities and entitlements which are provided to students studying in regular schools.” Furthermore, the NCPCR added that there is a serious issue of corporal punishment at the madarsas. The children are being taught about the supremacy of Islam, and there have been instances of sexual assault against minors within the madarsa premises.
The commission said that being minority institutes, madarsas enjoy exemptions that violate, “the fundamental right to equality before the law (Article 14); prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth (Article 15(1)); that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment (Article 39(f)) and also interrupts the State’s responsibility under Article 13 (2) to not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred under the fundamental rights and any law made in contravention of this shall, to the extent of the contravention.”
Non-Muslim students in madarsas: A case of religious coercion
Another shocking exposé by NCPCR suggested that a significant number of non-Muslim students were found to be enrolled in madarsas, which violated Article 28(3) of the Constitution of India. The revelation, combined with the assertion that these institutes promote Islamic teachings, suggests that these Islamic institutes violate Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015. The NCPCR argued that “keeping children from professing any other religion apart from Islam shall amount to a violation of Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015.”
Objectionable content in curriculum: Promoting extremist views
The NCPCR also took cognisance of the books prescribed in madarsas through fatwas issued by Darul-Uloom-Deoband. One fatwa declares that “Taqwiyat-ul-Iman is an authentic book,” a text known for its rigid views on Islam. The commission found that some of the madarsa teachings include text that talks about the supremacy of Islam, which fuelled concerns about indoctrination. Furthermore, NCPCR found out that certain books used in madarsas contain guidance on inappropriate relationships with minors. This raises several ethical and legal concerns regarding the madarsa education system.
The commission said, “The Commission has been in receipt of complaints regarding the fatwas issued by Darul Uloom Deoband, which contained references from a book titled ‘Bahishti Zewar’. It is pertinent to mention here that the said book contained content which is not only improper but is also objectionable and illegal regarding children, as the same contains text regarding engaging in a sexual relationship with a minor. The book is also alleged to be taught to children in madarsas, and further fatwas containing such objectionable information are accessible for all.” The book was removed from Darul Uloom Deoband’s website after notice from NCPCR in 2023.
The commission pointed out that a fatwa regarding ‘Ghazwa-e-Hind’ was also found to be part of the website of Darul Uloom Deoband. The NCPCR said, “The Commission has also taken cognizance of another objectionable content on the website of Darul Uloom Deoband wherein a fatwa talks about the invasion of India (Ghazwa-e-Hind) and how whoever will be martyred in it shall be a great martyr.” NCPCR said that being an educational body, issuing such fatwas exposes “children to hatred against one’s own country and eventually causing them unnecessary mental and physical suffering.”
Constitutional misuse and lack of oversight
The commission pointed out that Article 29(2) of the Constitution is being misused by madarsas to justify their practices. The commission said, “Madarsas serve as the primary institutions for teaching Islamic studies is undeniable.” NCPCR contended that this exemption does not align with the broader constitutional obligation to provide children with a balanced and formal education, accusing these institutions of operating “under the veil of Article 29(2) of the Constitution of India.”
Judicial review sought to correct “grave misconduct”
The NCPCR challenged the actions of Anjum Kadri, who filed the petition before the Supreme Court of India against the judgement by the Allahabad High Court where it struck down the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act 2004. The commission said that the Act stood against the principles of secularism and the constitutional mandate of Articles 14, 21, and 21A.
Notably, the High Court’s judgement was stayed by the apex court bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud, saying that though there was a legitimate interest in ensuring quality education, the remedy was not to strike down the Act.
