New Delhi:
In a major relief to around 17 lakh madrassa students in Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court today stayed an Allahabad High Court order striking down the UP Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004. This will allow about 16,000 madrassas in the state to continue functioning under the 2004 law.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said the Supreme Court’s decision was prima facie not correct and asked the Uttar Pradesh government to do so. The court also issued notices to the Madrassa administration and the Central and UP governments and posted the matter for further hearing in the second week of July.
The Supreme Court had last month declared the 2004 law ‘unconstitutional’ for violating the principle of secularism and directed the government to bring the madrasa students into the formal education system.
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed this and said that the objectives of the Madrassa Board are regulatory in nature and the establishment of the Madrassa Board itself will not have any impact on secularism.
CJI Chandrachud said the issues raised deserve further reflection.
The court said the verdict will impact the future of 17 lakh students in 16,000 madrassas and pointed out that subjects like mathematics, science and social studies are also taught in madrassas.
The central and state governments backed the Supreme Court’s judgment, with the Center saying suspected entanglement of religion and other relevant issues need to be discussed.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the madrassas, said religious education cannot mean religious education and the Supreme Court order will leave 10,000 madrassa teachers and 17 lakh students in the lurch.
However, the state government said it has made arrangements for the teachers and students.
Mr. Singhvi argued that it is wrong to say that madrassa education has no quality, is not universal in nature and does not have a broad base. Excluding the madrassas from ban is discriminatory and the Supreme Court has also said so in the 2002 Aruna Roy v. Union of India judgment, he pointed out.
