The Supreme Court of India has reserved its decision on the challenge to the repeal of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 by the Allahabad High Court. The court emphasized that “secularism means living and ceasing to live,” highlighting the importance of accepting diverse religious instruction in education.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court noted that the education provided under the Madarsa Education Act, 2004 is “not at par” with that of other government-recognised educational institutions, raising concerns about the quality and universality of madrasa education.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, who headed the three-judge bench, said, “In the end, we have to see in detail the religious laws of the country there are Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, etc. The country should be a melting pot of cultures, civilizations, and religions.” He continued, “Dismissing this action is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”
Justice JB Pardiwala addressed the arguments made by senior advocate Gurukrishna Kumar, saying, “Therefore religious education is not prohibited by the Constitution, and this is where your argument that they are deprived of mainstream education fails.”
Kumar argued that the madrasa syllabus mainly consists of religious subjects, saying, “What is given as syllabus and course content is just a sprinkling of secular education.”
Chief Justice Chandrachud responded to concerns about religious education, asserting, “Firstly, religious instruction is by no means a curse in our country… In India, can we say that the definition of education cannot include religious instruction? It is fundamentally a religious country.”
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi highlighted the importance of Article 28(2), which allows religious education under charitable institutions. He pointed out that repealing the Madrasa Act would violate fundamental rights by removing opportunities for religious education.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud observed, “If the student wants to receive instruction voluntarily, then it is covered under 28(3)… but you cannot compel the student.”
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, representing the intervener, said that madrasa education undermines the promise of quality education guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution, saying, “Although a person has the freedom to receive religious instruction, it cannot be accepted as a substitute for regular education.” .”
Senior Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi, representing the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), stressed that madrasas should not be considered channels of mainstream education.
Responding, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud asked, “Has the NCPCR banned some religious institutions or not? Is it the position of the NCPCR that minor children should not be deprived of religious education?”
The Chief Justice further asked, “Have you issued orders against sending children to convents? Why are you focusing only on madrasas? Has the NCPCR decided that this is against fundamental principles?”
Chaturvedi stated that he would seek instructions and file a statement accordingly.
Justice JB Pardiwala also questioned the NCPCR, asking, “Has the NCPCR taught the entire syllabus? You seem to have been taken by the word ‘religious instruction’ – the whole basis of your arguments is flawed. There are no guidelines. There is an important difference between the religious instruction mentioned in Section 28 and and how education is provided.”
The case was brought forward by Anjum Kadari and Madaris Arabiya Management Association, challenging the decision of the Allahabad High Court on the grounds of secularism and violation of Articles 14, 21, and 21A of the Constitution of India.
The petitioners said the decision would adversely affect around 10,000 madrasa teachers and over 26 lakh students.
Source link