The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court had on March 22 declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act unconstitutional. This verdict has been stayed by the top court.
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the Allahabad High Court’s recent decision to declare the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 unconstitutional [Anjum Kadari and anr vs Union of India and ors].
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra passed the stay order on finding that the High Court’s views on the matter appeared to be, prima facie, incorrect.
“The object and purpose of Madarasa Board is regulatory in nature and Allahabad High Court is not prima facie correct that establishment of Board will breach secularism. It (High Court judgment) conflates madrasa education with the regulatory powers entrusted with the Board … The impugned judgment shall remain stayed,” the top court said.
In its interim order, the Court also noted that the High Court appears to have misconstrued the provisions of the Madarsa Act, since it does not provide only for religious instruction.
The purpose and nature of the Act is regulatory in nature, the top court added.
The Court added that even if the petition before the High Court (which had challenged the Act’s validity) was meant to ensure that secular education is provided at madrasas, the remedy was not to strike down the Madarsa Act.
“The State has a legitimate public interest to ensure all students get quality education which makes them qualified enough to pursue a dignified existence. Whether this purpose will require jettisoning the 2004 Act merits serious consideration,” the Court further observed.
Notably, the Court also recorded the State’s submission that it would accept the High Court’s judgment in the matter.
All the same, the top court proceeded to stay the operation of the High Court judgment until the matter is considered further.
“The High Court, while striking down the Act, has ordered that (madrasa) students will be relocated by the State. This will impinge on future of education for all the 17 lakh children. We are of the view that this direction was not prima facie warranted,” the Court added, before staying the High Court’s judgment.
The bench was hearing an appeal challenging the High Court’s March 22 decision to strike down the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 as unconstitutional.
Senior advocates AM Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Huzefa Ahmadi, Menaka Guruswamy and Salman Kurshid appeared for the appellants today and highlighted that the judgment would affect around 17 lakh students and 16,000 madrasas in Uttar Pradesh.
Singhvi argued that it was wrong to term the education being imparted in madrasas as only being religious educations or to halt the functioning of such schools on such a ground.
“Today there are famous gurukuls because they are doing good work. Even my father has a degree from one of them. So should we shut them and say it is Hindu religious education? What is this? Is this ground to strike down a 100 year old regime? … Just because I teach Hindu religion, Islam etc that does not mean religious instruction and it was clearly held in the Aruna Roy judgment of this court,” he argued.
Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi also relied on the Aruna Roy judgment to urge the top court to stay the High Court’s verdict.
“Education under Entry 25 does not eschew religious education. Please stay the judgment,” he said.
“17 lakh students will have to be shifted across schools in Uttar Pradesh and they will go from different districts etc.. How will this situation be salvaged?” Rohatgi added.
The submissions made by the appellants were opposed by senior advocate Guru Krishnakumar, who appeared for the lawyer who had filed the petition challenging the Act before the High Court.
“It is being shown that other subjects are being taught at par with religious subjects. But it is other way around. Students of class 10 do not have the option to study science, maths, humanities separately. Thus there is a straight Constitutional bar under Article 28(1) and they concede before the High Court that religious instruction is being imparted,” Krishnakumar argued.
Additional Solicitor General, KM Natraj, meanwhile, said that the State of Uttar Pradesh has accepted the High Court judgment and would not be defending the validity of the 2004 Act.
“Yes, the State is not defending it (the Madarsa Act). They (students from madrasas) all will be accommodated in the normal schools. The State is competent to repeal the legislation as well. The matter requires consideration then I am not coming in the way,” he said.
Attorney General K Venkataramani informed the Court that the Central government had not supported the validity of the Act before the High Court either.
Source: https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-stays-allahabad-high-court-judgment-madarsa-act
