Join Us 
National News: It dismisses Allahabad High Court’s March verdict that had struck the 2004 Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act as unconstitutional.
At the same time, the court drew importance to the state regarding the role they played to see whether the standard education at the madrasas was within the parameters and requirements laid down by contemporary academia.
The SC added, “legislative scheme of UP Board of Madarsa Education Act was to standardize the level of education being prescribed in the madrasas, and what is not intended under such Act cannot be interpreted from those enactments and actions carried under such enactment” – PTI.
The apex court has held that Madrasas cannot award degrees or higher education beyond the secondary level because doing so would be a violation of the UGC Act.
The plea was brought before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. The bench had already reserved judgments on eight petitions, including the lead petition filed by Anjum Kadari, challenging the high court judgment.
On March 22, the Allahabad High Court termed the Act as “unconstitutional” and violative of the principle of secularism, asking the state government to admit madrasa students into the formal schooling system.
The CJI-headed bench gave a breather to about 17 lakh madrasa students on April 5 by staying the verdict of the High Court scrapping the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004.
During the hearing, CJI had said that the meaning of secularism was to “live and let live”.
Regulating madrasas was in national interest as several hundred years of the nation’s composite culture could not be wished away by creating silos for minorities, he had said.
The Uttar Pradesh government, in response to the query of the bench, stated that it stood by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 and believed that the Allahabad High Court should not have pronounced the entire law as unconstitutional.
Agreeing to the submissions of senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the litigants opposed to the HC verdict, the CJI said, “Secularism means — live and let live.”
Referring to the composite national culture, the CJI had asked the state government, “Is it not in our national interest that you regulate the madrasas?”
The bench further said, “You cannot wish away several hundred years of history of this nation like this. Suppose, we uphold the high court order and the parents of the children still send them to madrasas then it will just be a silos without any legislative intervention mainstreaming is the answer to ghettoisation.”
It had also asked to preserve India as a melting pot of cultures and religions.
“Ultimately we have to see it through the broad sweep of the country. Religious instructions are there not just for Muslims. It is there for Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, etc. The country ought to be a melting pot of cultures, civilisations, and religions. Let us preserve it that way. In fact, the answer to ghettoisation is to allow people to come to the mainstream and to allow them to come together. Otherwise, what we essentially would be doing is to keep them in silos,” the CJI had remarked.
The bench had wondered what was wrong with the law recognizing madrasas imparting religious instructions, mandating they followed certain basic standards but striking down the entire law meant such institutions remained unregulated.
The bench had said it should not be misunderstood as it was equally concerned about madrasa students getting quality education.
