An appeal has been lodged with the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High Court’s verdict that declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, unconstitutional. The appeal, filed by Advocate Sanjeev Malhotra and drawn by Advocate Pradeep Kumar Yadav, seeks to overturn the High Court’s decision, which has sparked a wide-ranging debate on the role of the state in religious education.
An appeal has been lodged with the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High Court’s verdict that declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, unconstitutional. This pivotal act, aimed at overseeing the functioning of madrasas in Uttar Pradesh, was struck down on March 22 by the Lucknow bench of the High Court, citing violations of the secular principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
The appeal, filed by Advocate Sanjeev Malhotra and drawn by Advocate Pradeep Kumar Yadav, seeks to overturn the High Court’s decision, which has sparked a wide-ranging debate on the role of the state in religious education. Madrasas, institutions dedicated to Islamic studies along with other educational pursuits, have been at the heart of this controversy, especially with the 2004 Act’s emphasis on Arabic, Urdu, Persian, Islamic studies, philosophy, and other specified branches of learning.
The High Court’s bench, comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, held that the Madarsa Act contravened the principle of secularism, a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution.
Also Read-Union Government Approved Rs 10,000-cr Electoral Bonds Days Before SC Ruling (lawchakra.in)
“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 articulated.
Further elaborating on the constitutional discord, the Court observed that the Act’s provisions discriminated between religions in the performance of state duties, thereby breaching Article 14 (right to equality), Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and Article 21-A (right to education for children between six and fourteen years of age) of the Constitution. Additionally, the verdict highlighted a violation of Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
In response to the potential educational void created by this ruling, the High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh State to ensure that students currently enrolled in madrasas are accommodated in other educational institutions, safeguarding their right to education amidst legal proceedings.
This case now moves to the Supreme Court, where the appeal against the High Court’s decision will be scrutinized. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for the governance of religious education in India, testing the balance between state oversight and the constitutional mandate of secularism. As the apex court prepares to hear the case, the legal and educational communities, along with the general public, await a judgment that could redefine the contours of religious education and state involvement in India.
Also Read-Supreme Court Emphasizes Consequences Of Celebratory Firing At Weddings (lawchakra.in)
