Religious Education At Govt's Expense: Allahabad High Court (DB) Directs Registry To Place Matter Before Chief Justice/PIL Bench

The Allahabad High Court last week directed the Registry to register a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as a separate case on the issue of government funding of religious education in institutions like madrasas and place the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate direction or before the appropriate PIL Bench.

The following issue has been referred to the CJ/PIL Bench:

"Whether funding by State Exchequer of institutions imparting religious instructions is violative of Articles 14, 25, 26, 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India?" 

It is significant to note that the bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Om Prakash Shukla referred the above-mentioned issue, which was hitherto under consideration by a single judge of the HC, to the PIL Bench in view of the mandate of Allahabad HC's verdict in the case of Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Sonu [Writ Petition No. 2599 (MB) of 2014].

For context, in Dinesh Kumar Singh Case (Supra), a full bench of the HC had held that while dealing with a matter, if a Single Judge or a Division bench comes across any matter including a question in the public interest, which is not connected with the matter before it, then, in that situation, the only option open to the Court is to direct the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate directions or before the appropriate PIL Bench and, in any case, the court should not convert such a writ petition into a PIL. 

The background of the matter 

Essentially, the said issue emerged while the single Judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by one Azaj Ahamad and others, who are working as teachers in a Madarsa and their grievance pertained to some salary dispute with the Madarsa management.

However, dealing with their plea, the Single Judge, vide its order dated March 27, sought a response from the Central and State Governments as to whether religious education can be imparted in Government funded Madrasas and whether this could be in violation of Articles 14, 25, 26, 29, and 30 of the Constitution of India.

Further, vide order dated May 17, the single judge, also allowed the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) to intervene in the matter.

Now, challenging both orders, the writ petitioner moved the instant intra-Court appeal wherein, before the Division bench, the Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, argued that the primary issue/prayer in the writ petition was to seek a direction to the respondents to release his withheld salary and to pay him a regular salary, however, he added, the Court, embarked upon a journey to adjudicate the issue of larger public interest (state funding of religious education).

It was further argued that though the Single Judge is not precluded from taking cognizance of such issues which are of larger public interest, however, the proper course for him is to refer that part of the matter which touches upon or which needs to be addressed in the larger public interest, to the Chief Justice for being referred to the Division Bench dealing with the Public Interest Litigation. In this regard, he relied upon the Allahabad HC's ruling in the case of Dinesh Kumar Singh (Supra).

Division Bench's order

At the outset, the Division bench agreed with the orders passed by the Single Judge wherein he decided to examine the question pertaining to the larger public interest and called upon the state and central government to file their responses in the matter. The bench also agreed with the decision of the Single Judge to allow NCPCR, which is a statutory commission incorporated primarily for overseeing the protection of children's rights, as an intervenor in the matter. 

However, regarding the question as to whether in such a situation the larger public interest issues can be entertained by the same Bench or the matter needs to be referred to the PIL Bench, the Divison bench took into account the ruling of the Full Bench of the HC Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Sonu (supra) and directed the matter to be registered a as a separate case and to be posted before the CJ. 

Appearances

For the appellants: Senior Advocate VK Singh, assisted by Advocates MA Ausaf, Sankalp Narain, GS Maurya, Srivats Narain, Adil Hussain, BP Tiwari and Ayush Tandon

For NCPCR: Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi

For Union of India: Advoctae RC Tiwari

Case title - Azaj Ahmad And Others vs. National Commission For Protection Of Child Rights (Ncpcr) Thru. Its Chairperson And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 178 [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 354 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 178

Click Here To Read/Download