Supreme Court stays Allahabad High Court order on striking down Madrasa Act

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the Allahabad High Court's order of March 22, 2024, striking down provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004.

The court prima facie said the law does not provide religious instruction and students are also imparted education in secular subjects like, science, mathematics and social studies.

A bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said the High Court's direction would impinge upon the rights of 17 lakh students as it is always a choice of students and their parents to select particular education.

"The States do have legitimate interests in ensuring students are not deprived of quality education. Whether this purpose would not require jettisoning the entire statute would require consideration," the bench said.

The HC had struck down the 2004 law for being unconstitutional and violating secularism.

Considering a batch of petitions, the court issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government which represented by Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj supported the judgment even though the state government before the defended the validity of the statute.

In its order, the bench said the HC had come to conclusion that the 2004 Act violated secularism and the basic structure and fundamental rights. The findings, however, appeared to conflate with regulatory power entrusted with the Madarsa Board. Article 28(1) of the Constitution provides that no religious instruction would be provided in institution fully aided by the government.

"The HC misconstrued 2004 Act, as it does not provide for religious instructions," the bench said.

The UP government contended about 17 lakh students, studying in Madarsas can be accommodated in regular institutions. The state would have to bear financial burden to the sum of Rs 1,096 crore if the judgement was stayed, it said.

Attorney General R Venkatramani submitted that entanglement of religion per se is suspect issue which needs deliberation.

Senior advocates A M Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, P S Patwalia, Salman Khurshid and Menaka Guruswamy among others on behalf of the petitioners questioned validity of the HC's judgement.

They contended the HC had passed 'farman' and affected Madaras being run under regulatory regime since 1908. Besides, 17 lakh students, the judgement also affected 10,000 teachers, they said.

"It would lead to chaos, as size of the state is more than that of Europe," they said.

The petitioners also claimed there are Gurukuls, Sanskrit Pathshalas across the country. Rohatgi has an example of a village in the Sivamogga district, where people speak in no other language than Sanskrit.

"Is the State violating secularism by giving aid? Because we teach Islam, the institution does not become that of imparting religious instructions," the counsel said.

On March 22, the HC's division bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Subhash Vidyarthi passed the order on a petition filed by one Anshuman Singh Rathore challenging the constitutional validity of the Act and certain provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2012.

The judgment came within months after the state government ordering a survey of the Islamic education institutions in the state and also formed a special investigation team (SIT) in October 2023 to probe the funding of Madarsas from abroad.

The high court had held the 2004 Act as violative of Articles 14, 21 and 21-A of the Constitution of India and Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.

"The State cannot, in any manner whatsoever, discriminate between religions while performing its duties. Since providing education is one of the primary duties of the State, it is bound to remain secular while exercising its powers in the said field. It cannot provide for education of a particular religion, its instructions, prescriptions and philosophies or create separate education systems for separate religions,” the HC had said.