The Supreme Court on Tuesday (Oct 22) questioned the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) why was it concerned with madrasas after the child rights body said students of such institutions weren’t able to pursue medical and engineering professions. CJI Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj made the remarks while reserving the verdict on petitions challenging the Allahabad High Court judgement. The high court had declared the 2004 Uttar Pradesh law on madrasas as unconstitutional on the ground it violated the principles of secularism.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court raised concerns about the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) singling out madrassas, after the child rights body highlighted that students in such institutions face challenges in pursuing careers in medical and engineering fields.
The top court, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, alongside Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, questioned why the NCPCR was specifically focusing on madrassas, while reserving its verdict on petitions challenging the Allahabad High Court’s judgment on the matter.
The Allahabad High Court had previously declared the 2004 Uttar Pradesh law concerning madrassas as unconstitutional, arguing that it violated the principles of secularism. This has led to a broader debate on the role of religious education and its alignment with mainstream educational standards.
Representing the NCPCR, Senior Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi argued that madrassas should not be considered an alternative to formal, mainstream education.
Chaturvedi pointed out,
“madrassa students will not have the opportunity to pursue careers in fields like navy, medical, engineering and other professions,”
-stressing the importance of providing students with education that enables them to access a wide range of career opportunities.
Chief Justice Chandrachud posed a critical question to the NCPCR:
“Has NCPCR issued any instructions, cutting across communities, that you will not take children into your religious institutions unless they are taught secular subjects?”
This remark highlighted the court’s interest in understanding whether the NCPCR had a uniform stance on religious education across all communities, rather than focusing solely on madrassas.
While defending its stance, the NCPCR clarified that it had no objections to madrassa education as long as it supplemented, rather than replaced, formal school education. According to the counsel, the NCPCR had conducted an extensive report on the deficiencies within the madrassa system and had also communicated with state governments, urging them to inspect these institutions.
However, the Supreme Court bench continued its line of questioning, asking if the NCPCR had taken a similar stance towards religious institutions belonging to other communities. The court sought clarification on whether the NCPCR was aware that young children across India receive religious instruction from institutions affiliated with various religions, such as monasteries and pathshalas.
The NCPCR reiterated its position, stating that-
“religious instructions should not be a substitute to mainstream education.”
Despite this explanation, the court pressed further, seeking specifics about any directives the NCPCR may have issued across different religious communities.
The bench questioned,
“So tell us, has the NCPCR issued a directive that across communities, that don’t send children to any monasteries, pathshalas, etc.”
Moreover, the court asked whether the NCPCR had mandated that children attending religious institutions, regardless of their community, must be taught essential subjects like science and mathematics.
The court’s line of inquiry suggested that it was keen to ensure that the NCPCR had applied its approach fairly and consistently across all communities.
“Why are you only concerned with madrasas? We would like to know if you have dealt with other institutes. Has NCPCR been even-handed in its treatment of all communities,”
-the bench asked, emphasizing the need for an even-handed approach.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s pointed questions reflect a larger debate on the balance between religious and secular education, as well as the responsibilities of the NCPCR to ensure that no community is unfairly singled out.
The court’s decision, which remains pending, will likely have implications on how religious institutions, especially madrassas, function within the broader framework of India’s education system.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Madrasas
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
