The Uttar Pradesh government has defended the Madarsa Act before the Supreme Court, arguing that striking down the entire legislation was unnecessary. The state contended that only specific provisions should be modified if needed, as the Act regulates education for Madarsas, which offer a different curriculum compared to regular institutions.
New Delhi: The State of Uttar Pradesh has contested the decision of the Allahabad High Court to strike down the entire Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, calling it incorrect. The state’s legal representative, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, argued before the Supreme Court that striking down the entire Act was unnecessary and that only specific provisions should have been scrutinized or modified if needed.
“We said that the entire Act need not be struck down but changes can be made. The entire legislation need not be struck down and what would be permissible is to examine some provisions, especially in light of the rest of the provisions being regulatory in nature,”
Nataraj submitted. He was presenting the state’s stance before a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, with Justices Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
In response, CJI Chandrachud questioned the state’s commitment to defending the legislation.
“Do you stand by your legislation? Do we take it on record that you stand by your counter submitted before the High Court… you are here for the State of UP, right?”
the CJI asked.
Nataraj clarified that the state had accepted the High Court’s judgment and had not filed any further Special Leave Petition (SLP). “The Act has been struck down by the High Court. We accepted it and we have not filed any further SLP. That is the present position,” Nataraj said.
The Supreme Court is now hearing an SLP challenging the Allahabad High Court’s judgment, which declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 unconstitutional. The SLP, led by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, was filed by Anjum Kadari through Advocate Sanjeev Malhotra.
Guruswamy argued that although the dispute started as a service issue before the High Court, the court wrongfully took suo moto cognizance and struck down the Act. The Supreme Court, in response, stayed the High Court’s judgment in April and issued notices for further examination.
Chief Justice Chandrachud noted that the state has a legitimate interest in providing quality education that helps students contribute effectively to society. However, he questioned whether this goal justified completely “jettisoning the whole Act.”
Despite the state’s acceptance of the High Court’s ruling, it also informed the Supreme Court that absorbing students into regular educational institutions would not pose a problem. Nataraj had commented,
“There will be no problem in absorbing the students… the matter requires consideration, I am not coming in the way of that.”
The Allahabad High Court’s decision was passed in response to a petition filed by Anushuman Singh Rathore, who challenged the constitutionality of both the UP Madarsa State Board Act, 2004 and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2012. The High Court found that the Madarsa Act violated principles of secularism, as well as Articles 14, 21, and 21A of the Indian Constitution.
In its ruling, the High Court noted that education provided under the Madarsa Act was not equivalent to the education offered by regular state-recognized institutions. It also highlighted that Madarsa education lacked both quality and universality, making it fundamentally different from the education provided by the State Primary, High School, and Intermediate Boards.
The Supreme Court is expected to deliver its final decision on whether the High Court’s judgment will stand, or if the Madarsa Act can be reinstated with necessary amendments. For now, the fate of the Act remains in judicial limbo, with the education of many students hanging in the balance.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE