The Allahabad High Court recently directed authorities in Uttar Pradesh to de-seal an unrecognised madrasa after the State failed to show any legal provision enabling the government to stop the functioning of such a madrasa [Madarsa Ahle Sunnat Imam Ahmad Raza v State of UP]
However, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi clarified that such a madrasa will not be entitled to claim any government grant till it is recognised and the Madarsa Education Board will not be obliged to permit its students in the examination conducted by it.
The students will not be entitled to claim the benefit of their qualification acquired from the madrasa for any purposes relating to the State, the Court added.
“The seal put on the petitioner madarsa will be opened within 24 hours of production of a certified copy of this order,” the Court ordered on January 16.
The judgment was passed in the case of one Madarsa Ahle Sunnat Imam Ahmad Raza which challenged an order passed by the District Minority Welfare Officer of Shrawast in May 2025 for closure of the madrasa.
It was argued that the madrasa was not seeking any grant from the State and thus non-recognition cannot lead to its closure.
Further, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the Supreme Court has classified minority educational institutions into three categories: (i) those which do not seek either aid or recognition from the State; (ii) those which want aid; and (iii) those which want only recognition but not aid.
“The first category of institutions is protected by Article 30(1),” he added.
In response, State counsel opposed the writ petition, stating that running of an unrecognised madrasa may create unwarranted complications as its students will not be entitled to claim any benefit on the basis of qualification acquired from unrecognised madrasa.
However, the order recorded that the State could not dispute the fact that there is no provision enabling the authorities to stop the functioning of a madrasa on the ground that it is not recognised.
Considering the same, the Court quashed the order passed by the District Minority Welfare Officer.
Advocate Sayyed Farooq Ahmad argued for the petitioner.
Additional Chief Standing Counsel Devendra Mohan Shukla argued for the State.
[Read Order]