India Tomorrow
NEW DELHI—Lakhs of Madrasa students and teachers face uncertainty as the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Friday declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004, ‘unconstitutional’. Reportedly there are twenty-five lakh students enrolled in different madrasas.
The High Court bench simultaneously directed the state government to accommodate students studying in Madrasas in other schools.
The HC order maintained that the said act violates “the principle of secularism” and fundamental rights provided under Article 14 of the Constitution.
It further declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004 violated of Articles 14, 21 and 21-A of the Constitution of India and Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
All India Teachers Arabic Madrasa Association has said that it will approach the Supreme Court against the High Court verdict.
There are around twenty-five thousand Madrasas in Uttar Pradesh. Around 16,500 madrasas are recognized by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education, 8000 others are unrecognized. Only five hundred and sixty madrasas get financial grants from the state government.
It is not clear which kind of madrasas are going to be affected by this order but the impact could be devastating. There is a question about the future of Darul Uloom Deoband and Nadwatul Ulema also.
It could also not be known about the time of shifting the madrasa students to regular schools. There is also no word about what will happen to Arabic and Persian language studies of the madrasa students as the government schools might not have the facilities to teach these languages.
Iftikhar Ahmed Javed, chairman of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education, said in a statement that the act of the government has been challenged and the verdict of the High Court was surprising. He said that the state government should seek relief from the Supreme Court. The Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education will send its recommendation after studying the verdict.
Iftikhar made it clear that the government grant given to madrasas is not for religious education. He added, “The grant is for the promotion of oriental and ancient languages like Arabic, Persian and Sanskrit. For this, there is a Sanskrit Board also there.”
He explained that if the teachings are in Arabic and Persian, then it is natural that there are some Islamic teachings. “The same is true for the Sanskrit Board where Vedas are taught.” He said that
unfortunately, these points could not be explained to the satisfaction of the court.
This verdict was passed by a division bench of justices Vivek Chaudhary and Subhash Vidyarthi on a petition filed by Anshuman Singh Rathore. Mr. Rathore is a practicing lawyer who challenged the constitutional validity of the act.
The petitioner had challenged section 1 (5) of the Right to Education Act which excludes madrasas, vedic pathshalas and educational institutions primarily imparting religious instructions.
The court directed the state government to “take steps forthwith for accommodating the madrasa students in regular schools recognised under the Primary Education Board and schools recognised under the High School and Intermediate Education Board of the state of Uttar Pradesh.”
The court said, “The state government for the said purpose shall ensure that as per requirement sufficient number of additional seats are created and further if required, sufficient number of new schools are established. The government shall also ensure that children between the ages of 6 to 14 years are not left without admission in duly recognised institutions.”
The Lucknow bench of the court said that madrasa students are required to study Islam and its doctrines to progress to the next class while modern subjects are either included or offered as optional and that they have the choice to study just one optional subject.
The petitioner Anshuman Singh Rathore argued that the provisions, scheme, and environment created by the Madrasa Act violate Articles 14, 15 and 21-A of the Constitution.
According to him, “The fundamental rights under the aforesaid articles, more specifically under Articles 14 and 21-A, include the right to universal quality education, which also includes secular education.”
Rathore also claimed that the Madrasa Act did not provide quality compulsory education up to the age of 14 years or class VIII, as required under Article 21-A of the Constitution.
In its response, the state government accepted that the Madrasa Board was providing religious education and instructions to students. It added that the state has sufficient powers to impart such education under the Constitution and is rightly permitting such education.
The state government also submitted that those madrasas were providing cheap education to these children who belonged to poor and marginalised families. It added, “The UGC Act does not relate to religious teachings, education and instructions or with traditional education and thus both occupy different fields.”
The Madrasa Board advocate told the court that nearly free education was being provided by these madrasas to minor children, with a monthly fee of Rs 10-20 per month. The lawyer said that if those institutes were closed, the students would be left without even that education.
He submitted that those madrasas were surviving on the aid received from the government. “Therefore, in the interest of these children from poor families, they should dismiss the petition”, he argued.
