Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce on Tuesday (November 5, 2024) its judgment in a batch of petitions challenging a decision of the Allahabad High Court to strike down the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Education Board Act, 2004 which regulated madrasa education.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu

The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce on Tuesday (November 5, 2024) its judgment in a batch of petitions challenging a decision of the Allahabad High Court to strike down the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Education Board Act, 2004 which regulated madrasa education.

The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) had followed up the High Court order by issuing a notification to send the children to secular and regular schools.

A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud reserved the case for verdict on October 22.

The High Court had found the State law unconstitutional for validating a system of education, which was grossly in violation of the principles of secularism.

The top court had dived deep into the question on whether the State could regulate madrasa education and syllabus, which also included religious instruction. The court had noted that India’s centuries’ old history of diversity cannot be wished away by ghettoising madrasa education.

“Religious instruction is not something which is unique to Muslims. There is religious instruction among Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs. It is a country which is a melting pot of cultures, civilisations, religions… Let us preserve it that way. In fact, the answer to ghettoisation is to mainstream… To allow people to come together. Otherwise we will be putting people in silos. To be shunted and forgotten,” Chief Justice Chandrachud observed.

In the final hearing of the case, the Bench had observed that religious instruction, historically and culturally, had never been anathema in India. Article 23 of the Constitution recognised religious instruction.

There was nothing wrong in a State regulating an institution run by a religious or linguistic minority in the interest of maintaining the excellence of education, the Chief Justice had orally observed.

“What is wrong with the Parliament or a State legislature enacting a law to regulate such institutions only to ensure that while training young minds, they are trained in a manner conducive to the quality of secular education and broader national interest?” the Chief Justice had asked.