NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court stayed till July second week, the Allahabad High Court's March 22 verdict declaring the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004, unconstitutional and violative of secularism and fundamental rights on Friday.
Commenting on the Allahabad HC's March 22 verdict, a three-judge bench of the top court, headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud and also comprising Justice Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra pointed out that the said finding of the HC that the establishment of a Madrasa board, prima facie seemed, to breaches the principles of secularism may not be correct. It, said, it would examine the pleas later in a detailed manner in July second week.
The order of the top court seemed to bring a major relief for as many as 16 lakh students studying across around 16,000 Madrasas in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The apex court passed the order after hearing a batch of appeals filed -- against the HC order -- by Anjum Kadari, Managers Association Madaris Arabiya (UP), All India Teachers Association Madaris Arabiya (New Delhi) and others.
“The object and purpose of Madarssa board is regulatory in nature and Allahabad High Court is not prima facie correct that establishment of board will breach secularism. It (High Court judgement) conflates Madrasa education with the regulatory powers entrusted with the Board. The judgment shall remain stayed," the top court said in its order on Friday.
The HC had last month in its verdict held that the 2004 law was "unconstitutional" for violating the principle of secularism and directed the government to accommodate all Madrasa students in the formal education system.
On hearing the batch of appeals, the top court today also issued notice to Uttar Pradesh government and asked it to file its detailed reply and posted the matter for further hearing to July 2nd week.
It also in its order observed that rhe HC appears to have misconstrued the provisions of the Madrasa Act, since it does not provide only for religious instruction.
The apex court, while taking a student centric approach, observed that if the concern in this case was to ensure that the students of Madarsas receive quality education, then the remedy would not lie in striking down the Madrasa Act but in issuing suitable directions to ensure that the students are not deprived of quality education.
The top court also said that it would hear the matter in detail in Juky second week.
Senior advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for one of the petitioners, told the SC that the Madarssa existed for more than 120 years, and if it would now be disrupted suddenly, then it would badly affect 17 lakh students and 10,000 teachers.
Singhvi also pointed out to the SC that it would be very difficult to adjust these students and teachers to the State education system abruptly.
