The Supreme Court underlined the role of the UP government in ensuring that the standards of education in madrasas meet the modern expectations of academic standards.
Validity of UP Madarsa Education Act: The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside the Allahabad high court's March judgment declaring the 2004 Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra made it clear that the Uttar Pradesh government is also important for ensuring that the standards of education in madrasas are at par with the expectations of modern academia, directing the state to shift students to other schools.
The Supreme Court also ruled that madrasas cannot award degrees of higher education as that is violative of the University Grants Commission Act.
"We have upheld the validity of the UP madrassa law and moreover, a statute can be struck down only if the state lacks the legislative competence," the CJI said while pronouncing the verdict.
"Legislative scheme of the UP Board of Madarsa Education Act was to standardise the level of education being prescribed in madrasas," the Supreme Court said.
The bench, on October 22, reserved its judgment on eight petitions, which included the lead one filed by Anjum Kadari, against the high court verdict.
What was the Allahabad high court verdict on UP Board of Madarsa Education Act?
The Allahabad high court had on March 22 declared the Act as "unconstitutional" and violative of the principle of secularism, and had asked the Uttar Pradesh government to accommodate madrasa students in the formal schooling system.
On April 5, the CJI-led bench had provided a breather to about 17 lakh madrasa students by staying the verdict of the high court scrapping the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004.
During the hearing, he had said secularism means "live and let live."
Further, it was the national interest that the establishment of several hundred years-old composite culture of the nation cannot be wished away, while silos are sought to be created for certain sections, Chandrachud had noted.
The Uttar Pradesh government submitted before the bench that it was of the view that the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 was not unconstitutional and hence should not have been quashed by the Allahabad high court.
Agreeing to the submissions of senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for the litigants opposing the high court verdict, the CJI said, "Secularism means – live and let live."
Referring to the composite national culture, the CJI had asked the state government, "Is it not in our national interest that you regulate the madrasas?"
But then again, the bench further went ahead to state: "You cannot wish away several hundred years of history of this nation like this. Suppose, we uphold the high court order and the parents of the children still send them to madrasas then it will just be a silos without any legislative intervention mainstreaming is the answer to ghettoisation."
It also prayed for preserving India as a melting pot of cultures and religions.
Ultimately, we have to see it through the broad sweep of the country. Religious instructions are there not just for Muslims. It is there for Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, etc. The country ought to be a melting pot of cultures, civilisations, and religions. Let us preserve it that way. Indeed, the answer to ghettoization is that let people come to the mainstream and let them come together. In other words, otherwise we would essentially be doing this: keep them in silos, CJI had observed.
The bench had wondered what was wrong with the law recognizing madrasas imparting religious instructions, mandating they followed certain basic standards but striking down the entire law meant such institutions remained unregulated.
The bench had said it should not be misunderstood as it was equally concerned about madrasa students getting quality education.
However, quashing the whole law was like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, it had said, adding that religious instructions were never an anathema in the country.
The top court had heard several lawyers on behalf of the eight petitioners apart from additional solicitor general KM Natraj for the Uttar Pradesh government for about two days before reserving the verdict.
Proceeding with the final submissions over the pleas challenging the order, the bench also earlier went through senior counsel abhishek Manu Singhvi, Salman Khurshid and Menaka Guruswamy on the writ.
Senior lawyers-a list of who comprised included Rohatgi and other counselors P Chidambaram and Guru Krishna Kumar-whilke representing various litigant.
.jpg)
.jpeg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
0 Comments