CJI D Y Chandrachud led bench, Today (April 5th) issued an interim stay on the Allahabad HC’s order, which deemed the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, unconstitutional and contrary to secular principles. The Court also sent notices to the Centre, Uttar Pradesh government, and other concerned parties regarding the petitions challenging the high court’s ruling.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today, temporarily suspended an Allahabad High Court ruling that had deemed the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act of 2004 “unconstitutional” for allegedly contravening the principle of secularism.
This pause on the high court’s decision was executed by a three-judge bench spearheaded by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, who, alongside Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, extended notices to both the Central and Uttar Pradesh governments among other involved parties to gather further insights on the appeals lodged against the high court’s verdict.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court bench articulated a preliminary stance, suggesting that the Allahabad High Court might have erred in its judgment. The bench posited,
“The object and purpose of the Madarsa board is regulatory in nature and the Allahabad HC is not prima facie correct that establishment of board will breach secularism.”
This commentary underscores a fundamental disagreement with the high court’s interpretation, highlighting a belief that the act’s intent and functions are predominantly regulatory, without directly engaging in or promoting religious education.
This intervention by the Supreme Court comes after the Allahabad High Court, on March 22, pronounced the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act of 2004 as “unconstitutional.” The high court had argued that the act violated secular principles and directed the Uttar Pradesh government to integrate students currently enrolled in madarsas into the formal education system.
This ruling emerged from a legal challenge initiated by advocate Anshuman Singh Rathore, who questioned the constitutional validity of the UP Madarsa Board. Rathore’s petition also critiqued the management of madarsas by the Minority Welfare Department instead of the education department, suggesting a misalignment with the intended secular framework of the state’s educational policies.
The Supreme Court’s temporary stay and its forthcoming examination of the case signals a critical juncture in the debate over educational governance, secularism, and the role of religious institutions within the broader educational system of Uttar Pradesh.
This judicial scrutiny will not only assess the immediate legal standing of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act but also potentially set precedents for how religious education entities are regulated and integrated within the state’s and India’s secular fabric.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Madrasa’s
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
