The Supreme Court has put an interim stay on the decision of the Allahabad High Court regarding the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Act. The Supreme Court said, “The High Court has made a mistake in understanding the provisions of the Madrasa Act. The High Court’s belief that this Act is against the principle of secularism is wrong.” The decision of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court to declare the UP Board of Madrasa Education Act 2004 unconstitutional has been challenged in the Supreme Court. During the hearing in the Supreme Court on the petition challenging the Allahabad High Court’s decision to cancel the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Act, Abhishek Manu Singhvi on behalf of the Madrasa Board said that the High Court does not have the right to cancel this Act… 17 lakh students have been affected by this decision. At the same time, about 25000 madrasas have been affected. This is about 125 years old, madrasas are being registered since 1908.
Table of Contents
“The High Court made a mistake in understanding the provisions of the Madrasa Act”
The Supreme Court said, “The High Court has made a mistake in understanding the provisions of the Madrasa Act. The High Court’s belief that this Act is against the principle of secularism is wrong.” The Supreme Court issued notice to the Center, UP Government, UP Madrasa Education Board on the petitions challenging the High Court’s order. The court has asked the UP and Central Government to file their reply by May 31.
Relief to 17 lakh students of 16000 madrasas of UP
The Supreme Court has sought a reply from the UP government in this matter. The matter will be heard in the second week of July and till then the High Court’s decision will be stayed. This is a big relief for the 17 lakh students of 16000 madrasas in UP. For now, studies will continue in madrasas under the 2004 law. The Supreme Court said, “The Allahabad High Court is not prima facie right. It is not right to say that this is a violation of secularism. The UP government itself had defended the Act in the High Court. The High Court had declared the 2004 Act unconstitutional.”
“Is this a basis for abolishing a 100-year-old law…”
A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra heard the matter. During this, Singhvi said, “Today there are popular gurukuls because they are doing good work. There are some very good gurukuls in Haridwar, Rishikesh. Even my father has a degree from one of them… so should we close them and say that this is Hindu religious education? Can this be the basis for abolishing a 100-year-old law?”
Singhvi said- Just because I teach Hinduism or Islam etc…
Singhvi said, “If you repeal the Act, you make madrassas unregulated and the 1987 rule remains untouched. The High Court says that if you teach religious subjects, it is against secularism, while the Supreme Court has held that religious education does not mean religious instruction.” Singhvi said, “Just because I teach Hinduism or Islam etc, it does not mean that I impart religious education. The court should look at the Aruna Roy judgment in this matter. The state has to remain secular, it should respect all religions and treat them equally. The state cannot discriminate between religions in any way while performing its duties. Since imparting education is one of the primary duties of the state,
it has to remain secular while exercising its powers in the said field. It cannot impart education of a particular religion or create different education systems for different religions.”
Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, on behalf of madrasas, said that these institutions teach different subjects, some are government schools, some are private, the meaning here is that these are completely state-aided schools, there is no religious education. Here Quran is taught as a subject. Huzaifa Ahmadi said that religious education and religious subjects are different, so the High Court’s decision should be stayed.
UP defended the law in the High Court?
The Supreme Court asked the UP government whether we should assume that the state has defended the law in the High Court…? On this, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj on behalf of the UP government said that we had defended it in the High Court, but after the High Court repealed the law, we have accepted the decision. When the state has accepted the decision, then the burden of bearing the expenses of the law cannot be put on the state now.
Do the provisions of the Madrasa Act meet the test of secularism, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India? The UP government said, “These madrasas themselves are running on government aid, so the court should dismiss this petition in the interest of children from poor families. An attempt is being made to create an impression that religious subjects are along with other curriculum. They are giving wrong information.”
It is not a question of any degree…
On behalf of the UP government, ASG Nataraj said that if madrasas are running, let them run… but the state should not bear its expenses. Students should be admitted only after the academic session ends. In this, general subjects have been made optional. Class 10 students do not have the option of studying mathematics and science simultaneously. It has been hidden from the High Court that religious education is given. With core subjects like Physics, Maths, Science being optional, these students will lag behind in today’s world. Inclusion of religion at any level is a dubious issue. The question is not of any degree, in the facts presented before the High Court, I could not persuade myself to say that the High Court order was wrong. We have been caught in the web of religion. The Center did not defend the law in the High Court.
Let us tell you that there are about 25 thousand madrasas in Uttar Pradesh. Out of these, 16500 madrasas are recognized by the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Education Board, out of which 560 madrasas get grants from the government. Apart from this, there are eight and a half thousand unrecognized madrasas in the state.
