India Tomorrow Web Desk
NEW DELHI—In an important development, the Supreme Court on Friday stayed the March 22 Allahabad High Court order that scrapped the UP Board of Madrasa Education Act 2004.
The high court order affects the education of 17 lakh students who were enrolled in the madrasas affiliated to the board. It has also put at risk the future of 10,000 teachers who were teaching in these madrasas.
The supreme court posted the matter for final disposal in the second week of July 2024. The apex court issued notices to the UP and central governments as well as UP Madrasa Board.
(Meanwhile, the UP government on Friday derecognised all the madrasas that operated under the Madrasa Board. The UP government order is based on the Allahabad High Court judgement of March 22. It will further complicate the matter. The UP government issued the derecognition order despite the fact that the matter is pending in the Supreme Court. The Central and UP governments supported the Allahabad high court judgement in the Supreme Court.)
The apex court order was issued by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.
The SC observed that the High Court prima facie erred in understanding the provisions of the Act, which are regulatory in nature.
Stating that the aims and objectives of the madrasa board are regulatory in nature, the apex court said the establishment of the board itself will not affect secularism.
The apex court issued the order on five Special Leave Petitions challenging the Allahabad High Court order.
The petitioners are 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 supreme court bench said that the High Court had prima facie misconstrued the provisions of Madrasa Board Act. “The Act does not provide for any religious instruction. The object and purpose of the Statute is regulatory in character,” the bench observed.
The top court said that if the concern of the high court was “to ensure that the students of Madarsas receive quality education, 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.”
“The state has a legitimate public interest to ensure all students get quality education; however, whether this purpose would require jettisoning the entire statute enacted in 2004 needed consideration,” the apex court said.
Central & UP Govts support High Court judgement in Supreme Court
Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, informed the SC that UP government has accepted the High Court judgment. This made the CJI ask why the State was not defending its legislation, despite defending it before the High Court. The ASG replied that after the High Court has delivered a judgment, the State has chosen to accept it.
The Union of India, through its Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, also supported the High Court’s judgment.
Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhi, appearing for the Managers Association Madaris, submitted that the Madarsa system existed for 120 years which has now been disrupted all of a sudden.
It has affected 17 lakh students and 10,000 teachers. It is difficult to adjust these students and teachers to the State education system abruptly. Singvhi argued that the High Court did not examine the locus standi of the petitioner who challenged the Act. He termed the reasonings of the High Court “astonishing.”
He refuted the High Court’s finding that modern subjects were not taught in the Madrasas and submitted that Maths, Science, Hindi, English etc are taught.
Singhvi added that there was a Code in 1908 for Madarsas, followed by regulations of 1987 and the Act of 2004. The Act was only regulatory in nature.
“If you strike down the Act, you make the Madarsas unregulated,” he submitted.
Teaching religion does not mean religious instruction
Singhvi questioned the High Court’s reasoning that if religion is taught, it will amount to religious instruction and will violate secularism. “Religious education does not mean religious instruction,” Singhvi argued citing the Aruna Roy case judgment 2002 (7) SCC 368. Because Sanskrit, Hinduism or Islam is taught, it will not per se become religious instruction – this was the dictum of the Aruna Roy judgment according to Singhvi.
“We have also very famous Gurkuls, in Haridwar and Rishikesh, doing very good work. My father has a degree from there. Do you shut them down saying they are places of religious instructions?”, he asked.
“The reason why the Court should stay is, a regime is there uninterrupted for 120 years. 17 lakh students and 10,000 teachers cannot be absorbed (in the other schools) with the academic year ending. There will be chaos,” Singhvi urged.
All Madrasas not wholly funded by state government: Petitioners
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, submitted that the embargo of Article 28 will apply only if the institution is “wholly maintained out of State funds”. He submitted that there are fully aided, partly aided and private Madarsas and all of them are regulated by the 2004 Act. He then referred to Article 28(2) which reads “Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to an educational institution which is administered by the State but has been established under any endowment or trust which requires that religious instruction shall be imparted in such institution.” Senior Advocates Huzefa Ahmadi and PS Patwalia also echoed similar arguments.
Senior Advocate Dr. Maneka Guruswamy submitted that the Act ensured that the 16,000 Madrasas, out of which 500 received aid in any form from the State, had a particular standard and followed a curriculum. If the statute is taken away, it will mean that they are left unregulated and the standards will fall.
