Supreme Court stays Allahabad High Court judgment declaring Madarsa Act unconstitutional

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the Allahabad High Court's recent decision to declare the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 unconstitutional [Anjum Kadari and anr vs Union of India and ors]..A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra passed the stay order on finding that the High Court's views on the matter appeared to be, prima facie, incorrect.."The object and purpose of the statutory Board which is constituted under the Madarsa Act is regulatory in nature. The finding of the High Court that the very establishment of the Board would amount to a breach of the principles of secularism appears to conflate the concept of Madarsa education with the regulatory powers which have been entrusted to the Board ... the High Court, prima facie, has misconstrued the provisions of the Madarsa Act ... the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 22 March 2024 shall remain stayed," the top court said. The case will be taken up next in the second week of July..In its interim order, the Court also noted that the High Court appeared to have misconstrued the provisions of the Madarsa Act, since it does not provide only for religious instruction. The purpose and nature of the Act is regulatory in nature, the top court added. The Court added that even if the petition before the High Court (which had challenged the Act's validity) was meant to ensure that secular education is provided at madrasas, the remedy was not to strike down the Madarsa Act. "The State does have a legitimate public interest in ensuring that students who pursue education in all institutions, whether at the primary, secondary or higher level, should receive education of a qualitative standard which makes them qualified to pursue a dignified existence upon receiving the degrees which are awarded to them. Whether this purpose would require jettisoning the entire statute which has been enacted by the State legislature in 2004 would merit serious consideration," the Court further observed. .It, therefore, proceeded to stay the operation of the High Court judgment until the matter is considered further. "The High Court, while striking down the provisions of the Madarsa Act, directed that all the students would be relocated by the State. The operative directions of the High Court would impinge serious on the future course of the students. Nearly 17 lakh students are pursuing their education in these institutions. While it is entirely the choice of the students and parents to choose the institutions in which the students wish to pursue their studies, we are of the view that the impugned direction of the High Court for the relocation of the students was, prima facie, not warranted," the Court added, before staying the High Court's judgment. .The bench was hearing an appeal challenging the High Court's March 22 decision to strike down the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 as unconstitutional..Madrasas/ madarsas refer to institutions where Islamic studies and other education may be pursued by students.The Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 had defined Madarsa-education as including education in Arabic, Urdu, Persian, Islamic-studies, philosophy and other branches of learning as may be specified by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education.The stated object of the 2004 Act was to empower the Madarsa Education Board by overseeing the functioning of madrasas..On March 22, a High Court bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi found that the the Act was violative of the principle of secularism enshrined in the Constitution of India."The State has no power to create a Board for religious education or to establish Board for school education only for a particular religion and philosophy associated with it. Any such action on part of State violates the principles of secularism, which is in the letter and spirit of the Constitution of India," the Court said.The State cannot discriminate between religions while performing its duties, the Court added.The High Court concluded that the Madarsa Act also violated Articles 14 (right to equality), 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and 21A (right to education for children between six and fourteen years of age) of the Constitution, apart from Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.The High Court further asked the State to take immediate steps so that students pursuing studies in madrasas of Uttar Pradesh are accommodated in other schools.This led to the instant appeals before the Supreme Court..Senior Advocates AM Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Huzefa Ahmadi, Menaka Guruswamy and Salman Kurshid appeared for the appellants today before the apex court and highlighted that the judgment would affect around 17 lakh students and 16,000 madrasas in Uttar Pradesh.Singhvi argued that it was wrong to term the education being imparted in madrasas as only being religious education or to halt the functioning of such schools on such a ground."Today there are famous gurukuls because they are doing good work. Even my father has a degree from one of them. So should we shut them and say it is Hindu religious education? What is this? Is this ground to strike down a 100 year old regime? ... Just because I teach Hindu religion, Islam etc that does not mean religious instruction and it was clearly held in the Aruna Roy judgment of this court," he argued.Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi also relied on the Aruna Roy judgment to urge the top court to stay the High Court's verdict."Education under Entry 25 does not eschew religious education. Please stay the judgment," he said."17 lakh students will have to be shifted across schools in Uttar Pradesh and they will go from different districts etc.. How will this situation be salvaged?" Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi weighed in..The submissions made by the appellants were opposed by Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar, who appeared for the lawyer who had filed the petition challenging the Act before the High Court."It is being shown that other subjects are being taught at par with religious subjects. But it is other way around. Students of class 10 do not have the option to study science, maths, humanities separately. Thus there is a straight Constitutional bar under Article 28(1) and they concede before the High Court that religious instruction is being imparted," Krishnakumar argued..Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj said that the State of Uttar Pradesh has accepted the High Court judgment and would not be defending the validity of the 2004 Act."Yes, the State is not defending it (the Madarsa Act). They (students from madrasas) all will be accommodated in the normal schools. The State is competent to repeal the legislation as well. (If) the matter requires consideration then I am not coming in the way," he said..Attorney General K Venkataramani informed the Court that the Central government had not supported the validity of the Act before the High Court either."In the facts presented before the High Court, I could not persuade myself to say that the High Court order was incorrect. We are on the entanglement of religion. Any entanglement of religion is the question here," he added..Advocates Rohit Amit Sthalekar, Faisal Farook, Shubail Farook, and Anurag Tandon also appeared for the petitioners/appellants..[Read order]