The Supreme Court of India announced on Monday that it will list for final hearing the pleas challenging the Allahabad High Court’s decision to scrap the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004. The High Court had declared the Act “unconstitutional” and violative of the constitutional principle of secularism.
On April 5, the Supreme Court had stayed the High Court’s judgement, indicating that the issues raised in seven petitions against the verdict warranted “closer reflection.” A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra has now scheduled the final hearing for August 13. The court also appointed lawyer Ruchira Goel as the nodal counsel to ensure the filing of common compilation of documents in electronic form.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing one of the petitioners, mentioned that a contempt petition against the state government has also been filed. The CJI suggested listing the pleas for final disposal, emphasizing that the stay order would remain in effect until then.
The Supreme Court, while staying the High Court’s verdict, had noted that the establishment of the Madarsa board was regulatory in nature and did not breach secularism. It also observed that the High Court had “prima facie” misconstrued the provisions of the Madarsa Act, which did not provide for any religious instruction. The court highlighted that relocating 17 lakh students to other schools was unwarranted and that the impugned order would remain stayed.
Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, representing Uttar Pradesh, argued that the state government had accepted the High Court’s judgement but did not intend to shut down any madarsas. He mentioned that the Uttar Pradesh government bears an annual financial burden of Rs 1,096 crore in aid to madrasas.
The High Court had, on March 22, declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, “unconstitutional” and asked the state government to accommodate students in the formal schooling system. The judgement came in response to a writ petition filed by advocate Anshuman Singh Rathore, who argued that the state had “no power to create a board for religious education” or to establish a board for school education only for a particular religion and its associated philosophy.
