Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Saturday, April 27, 2024

Lucknow Bench Of Allahabad HC Strikes Down UP Madarsa Act

Posted in: Civil Laws
Wed, Mar 27, 24, 10:40, 1 Month ago
star star star star star
5 out of 5 with 1 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 10011
Anshuman Singh Rathore vs UOI the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 unconstitutional and violative of secularism directing the State Government to accommodate students studying in Madrasas in regular schools.

While grabbing news headlines most prominently in virtually every newspaper and all other forms of all types of print, electronic, newschannels and social media, we see that in a path-breaking, pragmatic and progressive move, the Lucknow Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Hon’ble Mr Subhash Vidyarthi in a most concise, cogent, composed, creditworthy, courageous and current judgment titled Anshuman Singh Rathore vs Union of India in Writ – C No. – 6049 of 2023 and cited in Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:25324-DB that was reserved on 08.02.2024 and then finally pronounced on 22.03.2024 has gone to the extent of unequivocally declaring the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 unconstitutional and violative of secularism directing the State Government to accommodate students studying in Madrasas in regular schools. The Bench concluded that the Madarsa Act, 2004, is violative of the principle of Secularism, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 21-A of the Constitution of India and violative of Section 22 of the University Grants Commission. Resultantly, we see that the Madarsa Act, 2004 is ultimately declared unconstitutional.

It must be noted that the plea was filed by one Anshuman Singh Rathore challenging the legality of the UP Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 and certain provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2012. It also must be borne in mind that Anshuman had challenged the constitutionality of the UP Madarsa Board as well as objected to the management of Madarsa by the Minority Welfare development both by the Union of India and the State Government.

Needless to say, this will potentially impact the lives of tens of thousands of students in the most populous State of India that is Uttar Pradesh. The order will affect the lives of roughly 200,000 students currently enrolled in 16,500 recognised and 8,500 unrecognised madarsa or Islamic seminaries across UP according to the State Madarsa Board, Muslims form 19.26% of Uttar Pradesh’s 190 million population. It will definitely be challenged in the Apex Court. As of now, we see quite clearly that the Division Bench of the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court has forthrightly directed the State Governments to accommodate the Madarsa students in the formal education system.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, balanced and bold judgment authored by the Lucknow Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Hon’ble Mr Subhash Vidyarthi sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that:
Thereafter, on the basis of the aforesaid reference order, other writ petitions, namely, Writ A No. 3735 of 2012, 5548 of 2014, 3615 of 2020 and Writ (C) No. 481 of 2020, were also referred to the Larger Bench.

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 3 that:
The matters referred were nominated to different Benches, but, could not be taken up. Finally, by order dated 18.05.2023 of the Chief Justice, the present Bench was nominated to hear the reference. Writ (C) No. 6049 of 2023 (Anshuman Singh Rathore versus Union of India and others) was filed meanwhile, challenging the vires of the U.P. Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 (for short ‘the Madarsa Act’) on the ground that the same violates the principle of Secularism, which forms a part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India as well Articles 14, 15 and 21-A of the same. He further challenges Section 1(5) of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short ‘the R.T.E. Act’) This Writ Petition was also nominated to this Bench by order dated 31.07.2023 of the Chief Justice. Hence, all these matters with regard to vires of the Madarsa Act are before us.

As we see, the Bench then observes in para 4 that:
These petitions relate to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights of minor children of the marginalised and poor Sections of the largest minority community of the State. Looking into the vastness of the issues involved and depth of impact it would have upon them, this Court appointed Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, Sri Akber Ahmad and Sri Madhukar Ojha, Advocates, as Amici Curiae to assist the Court vide order dated 14.07.2023 passed in Writ A No.29324 of 2019.

To be sure, the Division Bench underscores in para 76 that:
The aforesaid judgments repeatedly emphasis the need of quality education for the children which is universal in nature. Without quality, idea of education in itself is a failure. Teaching merely one religion and a few languages, without any study of modern subjects, cannot be called quality education.

Truth be told, the Division Bench unfolds in para 80 that:
Thus it is apparent that the students of Class X have to study Theology (Sunni) and Theology (Shia), Arabic, Persian, Urdu, General English and General Hindi as compulsory subjects and they are to study only one of the subjects from amongst Maths, Logic & Philosophy, Social Science, Science and Tib (Medical Science). Home science is an optional subject for girls only. Students upto Class X do not have an option to study science, Maths and social science simultaneously.

While continuing in the same vein, the Division Bench enunciates in para 81 that:
Similarly, the students of Class XII have to study Theology (Sunni) and Theology (Shia), Arabic, Persian, Urdu and General English, but the General English taught to the students of Class XII is of the level of NCERT books of Class X. They can study only one of the subjects from amongst General Hindi, Logic & Philosophy, Social Science, Science, Tib (Medical Science) or Typing. Home science is an optional subject for girls only.

The students upto Class XII also do not have an option to study Maths as a subject. The optional subject Science taught to Class XII students is of the level of Classes VIII, IX and X. Whereas in State Board, Physics, Chemistry and Biology are separate subjects.

Not stopping here, it is then pointed out in the same vein in para 82 that:
In the same manner, subject Tib (Medical Science) is taught as an optional subject from Classes 9th to 12th. It is surprising to note that there is no regular Science subject from Classes 9th to 12th and Science is also an optional subject. Without giving basic education of Science particularly Biology, Medical Science education is being provided in the name of Tib to the students of Classes 9th to 12th.

As a corollary, the Division Bench then lays bare in para 83 that:
From the above discussion it is clearly established that education under the Madarsa Act is certainly not equivalent to the education being imparted to the students of other regular educational institutions recognized by the State Primary and High School and Intermediate Boards and, therefore, the educations being imparted in Madarsas is neither ‘quality’ nor ‘universal’ in nature.

Most forthrightly and most significantly, the Bench propounds in para 84 that, While the students of all other religions are getting educated in all modern subject denial of the same quality by the Madarsa Board amounts to violation of both Article 21-A as well as Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The State cannot hide behind the lame excuse that it is fulfilling its duty by providing traditional education on nominal fee. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised on modern education with modern subjects, an education that is universal in nature that prepares a child to make his future bright and to take this country forward.

It does not prescribe, by any stretch of imagination, limited education with emphasis only upon a particular religion, its instructions and philosophies. Education being provided by the Madarsa Board, therefore, is in violation of the standards prescribed by the Supreme Court while interpreting constitutional provisions. Therefore this Court has no hesitation in holding that the education being provided under the Madarsa Act is violative of Article 21 and 21A of the Constitution of India.

It cannot be glossed over that the Division Bench notes in para 86 that:
As per the provision contained in Section 22 of the UGC Act, only Universities or institutions deemed to be Universities under Section 3 of the Act can confer degrees and no other person or authority, including any Madarsa or the Madarsa Board, can confer any degree.

What’s more, the Division Bench clearly specifies in para 87 that:
The University Grants Commission has issued numerous Notifications in exercise of the power conferred by Section 22 of the UGC Act, which have specified numerous Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctorate degrees that can be awarded by the Universities and no degree, which has not been notified by the UGC, can be awarded by any University. Kamil, Fazil, Alama and Ductoora degrees have not been notified by the UGC and these degrees, therefore, cannot be awarded by any body.

As a corollary, the Division Bench then mandates in para 99 that:
In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the Madarsa Act, 2004, is violative of the principle of Secularism, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 21-A of the Constitution of India and violative of Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. Accordingly, the Madarsa Act, 2004 is declared unconstitutional. Further, we are not deciding the validity of Section 1(5) of the R.T.E. Act as we have already held the Madarsa Act to be ultra vires and we are also informed by learned counsel for both the parties that in State of U.P. Vadik Pathshalas do not exist.

Most remarkably, the Division Bench directs in para 100 that:
Since there are large number of Madarsas and Madarsa students in State of U.P., the State Government is directed to take steps forthwith for accommodating these Madarsa students in regular schools recognized under the Primary Education Board and schools recognized under the High School and Intermediate Education Board of State of U.P. The State Government for the said purpose shall ensure that as per requirement sufficient number of additional seats are created and further if required, sufficient number of new schools are established. The State Government shall also ensure that children between the ages of 6 to 14 years are not left without admission in duly recognized institutions.

Further, the Division Bench directs in para 101 that:
The Writ-C No.6049 of 2023 stands allowed and Writ-A Nos.29324 of 2019, 3735 of 2012, 5548 of 2014, 3615 of 2020 and Writ-C No.481 of 2020, which are placed before this Court on reference, are returned to the appropriate Court.

In a nutshell, we thus see quite discernibly that the Lucknow Division Bench of the Allahabad High very rightly resoundingly strikes down the UP Madarsa Act. The Division Bench clearly states that the scheme and purpose of the Act is only for promoting and providing the education of Islam and is therefore violative of the touchstone of Constitution itself! No denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Present space law framework in the country. Space has heightened the curiosity of mankind for centuries. Due to the advancement in technology, there is fierce competition amongst nations for the next space war.
The scope of Section 151 CPC has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy
Co-operative Societies are governed by the Central Co-operative Societies Act 1912, where there is no State Act. In West Bengal they were governed by the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act
Registration enables an NGO to be a transparent in its operations to the Government, Donors, to its members and to its urgent community.
The ingredients of Section 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are
Drafting of legal Agreements and Deeds in India
ST Land rules in India,West Bengal
The paper will discuss about the provisions related to liquidated damages. How the law has evolved. Difference between the provisions of England and India.
A privilege may not be a right, but, under the constitution of the country, I do not gather that any broad distinction is drawn between the rights and the privileges that were enjoyed and that were taken away.
It is most hurting to see that in India, the soldiers who hail from Jammu and Kashmir and who join forces either in Army or in CRPF or in BSF or in police or in any other forces against the will of majority
Pukhraj v/s State of Uttarakhand warned high caste priests very strongly against refusing to perform religious ceremonies on behalf of lower caste pilgrims. It took a very stern view of the still existing practice of exclusion of the SC/ST community in Haridwar.
This article aims to define delay in civil suits. It finds the general as well as specific causes leading to pendency of civil suits and over-burdening of courts. This articles suggests some solutions which are pragmatic as well as effective to reduce the burden of the courts and speed up the civil judicial process.
This article deals with importance, needs, highlights and provisions of the Surrogacy Bill 2016, which is passed by the lok sabha on 19th December 2018 .
Cross Examination In Case of Injunction Suits, Injunctions are governed by Sections 37, 38, 39 to Section 42 of Specific Relief Act.
Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v Gujarat inability of a person to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction..
Dr.Ashok Khemka V/s Haryana upheld the integrity of eminent IAS officer because of his upright and impeccable credentials has emerged as an eyesore for politicians of all hues but also very rightly expunged Haryana Chief Minister ML Khattar adverse remarks in his Personal Appraisal Report
State of Rajasthan and others v. Mukesh Sharma has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006.
Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs Kiran Kant Robinson the Supreme Court reiterated that, in a suit, the plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight unless there is a compulsion of the rule of law.
explicitly in a latest landmark ruling prohibited the use of loudspeakers in the territory without prior permission from the authorities.
The Commissioner of Police v/s Devender Anand held that filing of criminal complaint for settling a dispute of civil nature is abuse of process of law.
Rajasthan Vs Shiv Dayal High Court cannot dismiss a second appeal merely on the ground that there is a concurrent finding of two Courts (whether of dismissal or decreeing of the suit), and thus such finding becomes unassailable.
Complete Guide to Pleadings in India, get your Written statement and Plaint Drafted by highly qualified lawyers at reasonable rate.
Sushil Chandra Srivastava vs UP imposed absolute prohibition on use of DJs in the state and asked the state government to issue a toll-free number, dedicated to registering complaints against illegal use of loudspeakers. It will help control noise pollution to a very large extent if implemented in totality.
Rajasthan v/s Shri Ramesh Chandra Mundra that institutional independence, financial autonomy is integral to independence of judiciary. directing the Rajasthan Government to reconsider the two decade old proposal of the then Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court to upgrade 16 posts of its Private Secretaries as Senior Private Secretaries
The Indian Contract act, 1872 necessities significant consideration in a few of its areas. One such area of the Indian Contract act of 1872 is where if any person finds a lost good belonging to others and takes them into his custody acts as the bailee to the owner of the good.
Government has notified 63 provisions of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 2019 including the ones dealing with enhanced penalties
Jose Paulo Coutinho vs. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira no attempt has been made yet to frame a Uniform Civil Code applicable to all citizens of the country despite exhortations by it. Whether succession to the property of a Goan situated outside Goa in India will be governed by the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867
In a major legal setback to Pakistan, the High Court of England and Wales rejecting rightly Pakistan's frivolous claims and ruling explicitly that the VII Nizam of Hyderabad's descendants and India can collect 35 million pounds from Londons National Westminster Bank.
Power of Attorney and the Specific Relief Act, 1963
air pollution in Delhi and even adjoining regions like several districts of West UP are crossing all limits and this year even in districts adjoining Delhi like Meerut where air pollution was never felt so much as is now being felt.
Dr Syed Afzal (Dead) v/sRubina Syed Faizuddin that the Civil Courts while considering the application seeking interim mandatory injunction in long pending cases, should grant opportunity of hearing to the opposite side, interim mandatory injunctions can be granted after granting opportunity of hearing to the opposite side.
students of Banaras Hindu University's (BHU's) Sanskrit Vedvigyan Sankay (SVDVS) went on strike demanding the cancellation of the appointment of Assistant Professor Feroze Khan and transfer him to another faculty.
Odisha Development Corporation Ltd Vs. M/s Anupam Traders & Anr. the time tested maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit which in simple and straight language means that, No party should suffer due to the act of Court.
M/S Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd v/s. State of U.P that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing. In other words, the Apex Court reiterated the supreme importance of the legal maxim and latin phrase titled Audi alteram partem
Ram Murti Yadav v/s State of Uttar Pradesh the standard or yardstick for judging the conduct of the judicial officer has necessarily to be strict, that the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function.
Judicial Officers Being Made Scapegoats And Penalized By Inconvenient Transfers And Otherwise: SC
Desh Raj v/s Balkishan that the mandatory time-line for filing written statement is not applicable to non-commercial suits. In non-commercial suits, the time-line for written statement is directory and not mandatory, the courts have the discretion to condone delay in filing of written statement in non-commercial suits.
M/S Granules India Ltd. Vs UOI State, as a litigant, cannot behave as a private litigant, and it has solemn and constitutional duty to assist the court in dispensation of justice.
To exercise one's own fundamental right to protest peacefully does not give anyone the unfettered right to block road under any circumstances thereby causing maximum inconvenience to others.
Today, you have numerous traffic laws as well as cases of traffic violations. People know about safe driving yet they end up defying the safety guidelines. It could be anything like driving while talking on the phone, hit and run incidents, or driving under the influence of alcohol.
The legal processes are uncertain. Also, there are times when justice gets denied, and the legal outcomes get delayed. Hence, nobody wants to see themselves or their loved one end up in jail.
Arun Kumar Gupta v/s Jharkhand that judicial officer's integrity must be of a higher order and even a single aberration is not permitted. The law pertaining to the vital subject of compulsory retirement of judicial officers have thus been summed up in this noteworthy judgment.
Online Contracts or Digital Agreements are contracts created and signed over the internet. Also known as e-contracts or electronic contracts, these contracts are a more convenient and faster way of creating and signing contracts for individuals, institutions and corporate.
Re: Problems And Miseries Of Migrant Labourers has asked Maharashtra to be more vigilant and make concerted effort in identifying and sending stranded migrant workers to their native places.
Gerald Lynn Bostock v/s Clayton County, Georgia that employees cannot be fired from the jobs merely because of their transgender and homosexual identity.
This article compares two cases with similar facts, yet different outcomes and examines the reasons for the same. It revolves around consideration and validation of contracts.
Odisha Vikas Parishad vs Union Of India while modifying the absolute stay on conducting the Jagannath Rath Yatra at Puri has allowed it observing the strict restrictions and regulations of the Centre and the State Government.
Soni Beniwal v/s Uttarakhand even if there is a bar on certain matters to be taken as PIL, there is always discretion available with the Court to do so in exercise of its inherent powers.
Indian Contract Act was commenced in the year 1872 and since then, several deductions and additions have happened to the same. The following piece of work discusses about the concept of offer under the Indian Contract Act, 1872
Top