The Supreme Court on Friday imposed an interim stay on Allahabad High Court’s order that deemed the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004, “unconstitutional” and in violation of the principle of secularism.
Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, leading a three-judge bench, issued notices to the Centre, Uttar Pradesh government and others regarding pleas against the high court order.
“The objective and purpose of the Madrasa board are regulatory in nature, and the Allahabad High Court’s presumption that the establishment of the board would breach secularism is not prima facie correct,” stated the bench, which also included Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
The apex court pointed out that the High Court had misconstrued provisions of the 2004 act, as it does not entail religious instruction, and the statute’s purpose and character are primarily regulatory.
On March 22, the high court had declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004, “unconstitutional” and in violation of the principle of secularism. It directed the state government to integrate current students into the formal schooling system.
This decision came following a writ petition filed by advocate Anshuman Singh Rathore, who challenged the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Board and raised objections to the management of Madrasas by the Minority Welfare Department rather than the education department.
The top court said the High Court judgement would affect the 17 lakh students, and it is of the view that direction of relocation of students to other school was not warranted.
“The object and purpose of Madrasa board is regulatory in nature and Allahabad High Court is not prima facie correct that establishment of board will breach secularism. It (High Court judgement) conflates Madrasa education with the regulatory powers entrusted with the Board… The impugned judgment shall remain stayed,” the top court said.
It also issued notice to Uttar Pradesh government on appeals challenging the High Court March 22 order and posted the matter for hearing in July 2nd week.
The apex court also noted that the High Court appears to have misconstrued the provisions of the Madrasa Act, since it does not provide only for religious instruction. It said the purpose and nature of the Act is regulatory in nature.
In the order, the bench stated, “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.”
It said that if the concern was to ensure that the students of Madrasas receive quality education, the remedy would not lie in striking down the Madrasa Act but in issuing suitable directions to ensure that the students are not deprived of quality education.
The order of the top court came on appeals against High Court order filed by Anjum Kadari, Managers Association Madaris Arabiya(UP), All India Teachers Association Madaris Arabiya (New Delhi), Manager Association Arbi Madrasa Nai Bazar and Teachers Association Madaris Arabiya Kanpur.
Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, said that the State is accepting the judgment of the High Court.
To this, CJI Chandrachud asked why the State was not defending its legislation, despite defending it before the High Court. The ASG said that after the High Court has delivered a judgment, the State has decided to accept it.
Uttar Pradesh government said if Madrasas are running let them run, but the State should not bear the costs.
Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, appearing for Centre, also supported the High Court’s judgment and said the entanglement of religion with education is the suspect issue and the relocation of the Madrasa students to other schools would not be an issue.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for one of the petitioners, submitted that the Madrasa regime was a status quo that existed for 120 years which is now disrupted suddenly, and would affect 17 lakh students and 10,000 teachers.
It is difficult to adjust these students and teachers to the State education system abruptly, he added. The High Court’s finding that modern subjects were not taught in the Madrasas are not correct, said Singhvi adding that Maths, Science, Hindi, English etc are taught in Madrasas.
“We have also very famous Gurukuls, in Haridwar and Rishikesh, doing very good work. My father has a degree from there. So should we shut them and say it is Hindu religious education?”, asked the senior counsel.
Madrasas are institutions where Islamic studies and other education may be pursued by students. On March 22, Allahabad High Court found that the 2004 Act was violative of the principle of secularism enshrined in the Constitution of India.
The High Court further asked the State to take immediate steps so that students pursuing studies in Madrasas of Uttar Pradesh are accommodated other schools.