The Supreme Court on Friday (April 5) stayed the Allahabad High Court’s March 22 judgment striking down the ‘Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004’ as unconstitutional.
“We are of the view that the issues raised in the petitions merit closer reflection. We are inclined to issue notice,” the Court observed while issuing notice on five Special Leave Petitions filed against the High Court’s judgment.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandracuhd, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the High Court prima facie erred in understanding the provisions of the Act, which are regulatory in nature.
The operative directions of the High Court would impact the future course of education of nearly 17 lakh students, the Court observed while staying the High Court judgment.
HC misconstrued the Act. Supreme Court’s observation
“In striking down the Act, the High Court prima facie misconstrued the provisions of the Act. The Act does not provide for any religious instruction. The object and purpose of the Statute is regulatory in character,” the bench observed in the order. The finding of the High Court that the very establishment of the Board would violate secularism appears to conflate Madarsa education with the regulatory powers of the Board, the Court observed. If the concern was to ensure that the students of Madarsas receive quality education, the remedy would not lie in striking down the Madarsa Act but in issuing suitable directions to ensure that the students are not deprived of quality education.
The state has a legitimate public interest to ensure all students get quality education; however, whether this purpose would require jettisoning the entire statute enacted in 2004 needed consideration, the Court said.
The petitions were filed by Anjum Kadari, Managers Association Madaris Arabiya(UP), All India Teachers Association Madaris Arabiya (New Delhi), Manager Association Arbi Madarsa Nai Bazar and Teachers Association Madaris Arabiya Kanpur. The Court posted the petitions for final disposal in the second week of July 2024.
Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, said that the State is accepting the High Court judgment. This made the CJI ask why the State was not defending its legislation, despite defending it before the High Court. The ASG said that after the High Court has delivered a judgment, the State has chosen to accept it.
The Union of India, represented by Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, also supported the High Court’s judgment.
‘
17 Lakh students will be affected’. Petitioners
Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhi, appearing for the Managers Association Madaris, submitted that the Madarsa regime was a status quo that existed for 120 years which is now disrupted suddenly, affecting 17 lakh students and 10,000 teachers. It is difficult to adjust these students and teachers to the State education system abruptly. Singvhi argued that the High Court did not examine the locus standi of the petitioner who challenged the Act. He termed the reasonings of the High Court “astonishing”.
He refuted the High Court’s finding that modern subjects were not taught in the Madrasas and submitted that Maths, Science, Hindi, English etc are taught. He added that there was a Code in 1908 for Madarsas, followed by regulations of 1987 and the Act of 2004. The Act was only regulatory in nature, which the State the competent to enact as per Entry 25 of the List 3 of the Constitution.
“If you strike down the Act, you make the Madarsas unregulated,” he submitted.
Teaching religion won’t mean religious instruction. Petitioners
He questioned the High Court’s reasoning that if religion is taught, it will amount to religious instruction and will violate secularism. “Religious education does not mean religious instruction,” Singhvi argued citing the Aruna Roy case judgment 2002 (7) SCC 368. Because Sanskrit, Hinduism or Islam is taught, it will not per se become religious instruction – this was the dictum of the Aruna Roy judgment according to Singhvi.
“We have also very famous Gurkuls, in Haridwar and Rishikesh, doing very good work. My father has a degree from there. Do you shut them down saying they are places of religious instructions?”, he asked.
“The reason why the Court should stay is, a regime is there uninterrupted for 120 years. 17 lakh students and 10,000 teachers cannot be absorbed (in the other schools) with the academic year ending. There will be chaos,” Singhvi urged.
All Madarsas not wholly funded out of State funds. Petititioners
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, submitted that the embargo of Article 28 will apply only if the institution is “wholly maintained out of State funds”. He submitted that there are fully aided, partly aided and private Madarsas and all of them are regulated by the 2004 Act. He then referred to Article 28(2) which reads “Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to an educational institution which is administered by the State but has been established under any endowment or trust which requires that religious instruction shall be imparted in such institution.” Senior Advocates Huzefa Ahmadi and PS Patwalia also echoed similar arguments.
Senior Advocate Dr.Maneka Guruswamy submitted that the Act ensured that the 16,000 Madarsas, out of which 500 received aid in any form from the State, had a particular standard and followed a curriculum. If the statute is taken away, it will mean that they are left unregulated and the standards will fall.
‘
Students will lag behind’. Opposition by State and private respondent
Opposing the interim relief, the State assured the Court that a smooth transition of the students and teachers would be ensured. The ASG said that the Madarsas have not been asked to be closed and only the Act has been struck down. So the effect is that there is no burden on the State to aid the Madarsas. However, the Madarsas are free to run without any State aid. The burden of the State is Rs 1096 crores, he said.
Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar, appearing for a party who approached the High Court, refuted the petitioners’ assertions that the Madarsas aren’t wholly funded out of the State and that modern subjects were taught there.
Senior Advocate V Chitambaresh submitted that subjects like Maths, Science etc., were optional in Madarsas and hence, the students will “lag behind in the present day world”. He submitted that the people running the institutions are “not experts in any particular field except their faith.”
The Attorney General opposes the petitions.
When the bench sought the views of Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, he submitted, “Entanglement of religion is a suspect issue in any degree. And this is beyond the tolerable degree, especially as State aid is involved. This is a matter requiring deliberation. “He supported the High Court’s judgment by saying that it was not wrong on any aspect. AG also stated that the High Court’s judgment does not have the impact of paralysing the Madarsas and the only consequence was that there won’t be any State aid for them.
While declaring the law as Ultra Vires, the High Court Division comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi also directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to frame a scheme so that the students presently studying in Madrasas can be accommodated in the formal education system.
The High Court’s ruling came in a writ petition filed by one Anshuman Singh Rathore challenging the vires of the UP Madarsa Board as well as objecting to the management of Madarsa by the Minority Welfare Department, both by Union of India and State Government and other connected issues.
M.A Ausaf, Adv., Sankalp Narain, Adv. and Rohit Amit Sthalekar, Advocate-On-Record also appeared for the Petitioners before the Supreme Court
Case Title : Anjum Kadari and another v. Union of India and others Diary No. 14432-2024, Managers Association Madaris Arabiya UP v. Union of India SLP(C) No. 7821/2024 and connected matters.
