Supreme Court Receives Appeal Against Allahabad High Court's Verdict on Uttar Pradesh Madarsa Act
Updated On : June 25, 2024
In a major legal development, an appeal challenging the recent judgment of the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench declaring the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004 unconstitutional has been filed before the Supreme Court.
Appearing on behalf of the appellant, the appeal has been filed by Advocate Sanjeev Malhotra, and representation has been drawn by Advocate Pradeep Kumar Yadav. The contentious Act, aimed at bringing regulation in education to Madarsas of Uttar Pradesh, has sparked a controversy over its compatibility with constitutional principles.
Madrasas, sometimes spelled madrasas, are institutions designed to teach students Islamic studies alongside other general disciplines. The Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, defined the Madarsa Education and included Arabic, Urdu, Persian, Islamic Studies, Philosophy, and other subjects specified in its ambit. The Act aimed to empower the Madarsa Education Board to oversee the functioning of such institutions.
The latest judgment by a two-judge bench of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court had quashed the Act, saying it goes against the constitutional precepts. The court declared the Act unconstitutional because the State has no power to set up a board for religious education only; that would be against secularism, which is a feature of the Indian Constitution.
In its ruling, it pointed out that the state cannot, in discharging its function, accord itself to one religion or another. The court has struck down the Madarsa Act as violative of several constitutional provisions, including Articles 14 (right to equality), 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and 21-A (right to education for children aged between six and fourteen years), read with Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
The High Court further instructed the state to take immediate steps regarding the accommodation of students of Madrasas presently being run in Madrasas in some other educational institutions of the state across Uttar Pradesh.
The ruling provoked controversy, and an appeal was filed in the apex court, which stands for further scrutiny of the matter. The interpretation of the ruling was what they viewed as an appeal against the constitutional principles.
The stakeholders now wait with bated breath for the Supreme Court's deliberations, which are bound to have far-reaching consequences over the long term on how India regulates religious education and, by extension, safeguards constitutional values.
Supreme Court Receives Appeal Against Allahabad High Court's Verdict on Uttar Pradesh Madarsa Act
June 25, 2024
In a major legal development, an appeal challenging the recent judgment of the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench declaring the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004 unconstitutional has been filed before the Supreme Court.
Appearing on behalf of the appellant, the appeal has been filed by Advocate Sanjeev Malhotra, and representation has been drawn by Advocate Pradeep Kumar Yadav. The contentious Act, aimed at bringing regulation in education to Madarsas of Uttar Pradesh, has sparked a controversy over its compatibility with constitutional principles.
Madrasas, sometimes spelled madrasas, are institutions designed to teach students Islamic studies alongside other general disciplines. The Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, defined the Madarsa Education and included Arabic, Urdu, Persian, Islamic Studies, Philosophy, and other subjects specified in its ambit. The Act aimed to empower the Madarsa Education Board to oversee the functioning of such institutions.
The latest judgment by a two-judge bench of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court had quashed the Act, saying it goes against the constitutional precepts. The court declared the Act unconstitutional because the State has no power to set up a board for religious education only; that would be against secularism, which is a feature of the Indian Constitution.
In its ruling, it pointed out that the state cannot, in discharging its function, accord itself to one religion or another. The court has struck down the Madarsa Act as violative of several constitutional provisions, including Articles 14 (right to equality), 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and 21-A (right to education for children aged between six and fourteen years), read with Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
The High Court further instructed the state to take immediate steps regarding the accommodation of students of Madrasas presently being run in Madrasas in some other educational institutions of the state across Uttar Pradesh.
The ruling provoked controversy, and an appeal was filed in the apex court, which stands for further scrutiny of the matter. The interpretation of the ruling was what they viewed as an appeal against the constitutional principles.
The stakeholders now wait with bated breath for the Supreme Court's deliberations, which are bound to have far-reaching consequences over the long term on how India regulates religious education and, by extension, safeguards constitutional values.
