Allahabad High Court Declares 'UP Board Of Madarsa Education Act 2004' As Unconstitutional
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has declared the 'UP Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004' as UNCONSTITUTIONAL violating the principle of Secularism. A detailed Judgment is awaited.While declaring the law as Ultra Vires, the Division comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi also directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to frame a scheme...
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has declared the 'UP Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004' as UNCONSTITUTIONAL violating the principle of Secularism. A detailed Judgment is awaited.
While declaring the law as Ultra Vires, the Division comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi also directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to frame a scheme so that the students presently studying in Madrasas can be accommodated in the formal education system.
This ruling comes months after the state government decided to survey the Islamic education institutions in the State and it had also formed an SIT in October 2023 to probe madrassas' funds from abroad.
The High Court's rulings has come in a writ petition filed by one Anshuman Singh Rathore challenging the vires of the UP Madarsa Board as well as objecting to the management of Madarsa by the Minority Welfare Department, both by Union of India and State Government and other connected issues.
In December 2023, the division bench raised its concerns about potential arbitrariness and the need for transparency in the administration of educational institutions, emphasizing the broader issue of whether such decisions align with principles of equal opportunity and secular governance.
It may be noted that the HC has, in October 2019, referred certain essential questions surrounding the concerns of the functioning and structure of the Madrasa board to a Larger Bench (Writ Petition No.29324 (S/S) of 2019: Mohammad Javed Vs. State of U.P. and others).
The questions referred to a larger bench are:
"(i) Since the Madarsa Board is constituted for education in 'Arbic, Urdu, Parsian, Islamic-studies, Tibb Logic, Philosophy and includes such other branches of learning as may be specified by the Board from time to time', how come persons of a particular religion are provided to be member of the same? It does not talks about exponence in the aforesaid fields, for the purposes of which the Board is constituted, but persons of specific religion. It was put to learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as to whether the purpose of the Board is to impart religious education only, to which he submits that a perusal of the Madarsa Education Act, 2004 does not indicate so.
(ii) With a secular constitution in India can persons of a particular religion be appointed/nominated in a Board for education purposes or it should be persons belonging to any religion, who are exponent in the fields for the purposes of which the Board is constituted or such persons should be appointed, without any regard to religion, who are exponent in the field for the purposes of which the Board is constituted?
(iii) The Act further provides the Board to function under the Minority Welfare Ministry of State of U.P., hence, a question arises as to whether it is arbitrary for providing the Madarsa education to be run under the Minority Welfare Department while all the other education institutions including those belonging to other minorities communities like Jains, Sikhs, Christians etc being run under the Education Ministry and whether it arbitrarily denies the benefit of experts of education and their policies to the children studying in Madarsa?
Advocates Gaurav Mehrotra, Akber Ahmad and Madhukar Ojha appeared as Amicus Curiae. Mohd. Kumail Haider appeared for the respondents.