Why Are You Only Concerned With Madarsas? Have You Equally Treated Institutions Of Other Religions? Supreme Court Asks NCPCR

In response to the stand taken by the National Commission for the Protection of Children's Rights (NCPCR) against the Madarsa education system, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 22) asked it if it has taken the same stand against similar institutions of other religions as well.

Pointing out that there are similar institutions where children of other religions join for religious studies and priestly training, the Court asked why the NCPCR was "only concerned with the Madarsas" and sought to know if it was "even-handed" in treating all communities alike.

The interaction happened when a bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a batch of appeals against the Allahabad High Court's judgment which struck down the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 as unconstitutional. The bench reserved its judgment today.

Intervening in the present matter, the NCPCR has filed a report raising various objections to the Madarsa system, saying that the standards were not compliant with the Right to Education Act.

Has NCPCR studied Madarsa syllabus in depth? Court asked.

During the hearing, Justice Pardiwala, wondering if NCPCR has held any in-depth study of the Madarsa Syllabus, expressed :

"Has NCPCR studied the entire syllabus? Does that syllabus talk about religious instruction? What is religious instruction? What have you understood? It seems you all are mesmerized by the word 'religious instructions' and that's why you are not getting out of it - the entire basis of this argument- is not on a correct basis"

He added that NCPCR has overseen the striking difference between the concept of 'Religious Instructions' as provided under Article 28 and religious education and the medium of its teaching. 

"There are no instructions. There is a fine distinction between religious instructions under Article 28 and the medium in which the education is imparted."  Justice Pardiwala referred to the judgment in Aruna Roy case and said that the teaching of religion was not prohibited.

Has NCPCR Even-Handedly Treated All Religious Institutions? Bench Inquires 

During the hearing, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrahcud asked, "Has NCPCR banned religious instructions in other communities or not?"

 Senior Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi, appearing for NCPCR, clarified that the Commission was not against 'religious instructions' per se. She added, "We are a secular country and secularism doesn't mean stopping anybody but respecting others' religion and culture- so this is my view." She added that the Commission's objection was not to religious instructions but to religious studies being seen as a substitute for mainstream secular education.

The CJI then posed if it was NCPCR's case that little children should not have to undergo religious instructions. "But NCPCR is aware of the fact that there are religious instructions provided across India to young children by institutions of their community. Has NCPCR adopted the same stand that it is contrary to fundamental Constitutional values?"

The Counsel answered that NCPCR's clear stand is that children should not be deprived of their fundamental rights, especially under Article 21A (right to education) ."Religious instruction must not be substituted as compulsory education." 

The CJI inquired if similar directives were issued for other religious institutions- " Tell us, has NCPCR issued any directions across the country that don't send children to Monastery, to Pathshala ...or has it issued any direction that children who go to these institutions, they must be taught science, maths etc" 

When Chaturvedi informed that repeated instructions to state governments are sent reminding of free and compulsory education for children, the CJI interjected : "So we are not talking about the general free and compulsory education...Has NCPCR issued any instructions, cutting across communities, that you will not take children into your religious institutions unless they are taught secular subjects?"

"Why are you only concerned with Madrasas? We would like to know whether you have dealt with other institutions. We want to know if NCPCR has been even-handed in its treatment of all communities, show us where the directives are issued." 

Chaturvedi said that she would seek instructions from the commission to that extent and undertook to file an additional statement.

When the counsel stressed that the children as a matter of fundamental right under Article 21A should get compulsory and free education as it was linked to their right to live with dignity, Justice Pardiwala asked :"These children will not live a dignified life? That's your argument?"

Chaturvedi answered that it was important for a Welfare State to uphold its obligations under Article 21A.  

"State is by-passing its obligation under article 21A. It (Madarsa education) is being treated as an alternative education that is the problem, if it is supplementing it then it's not a problem."

Senior Advocate MR Shamshad, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the NCPCR's statement in the Court had several objectionable portions, which he termed "Islamophobic." He said that the parts of the reports were widely circulated in the media and social media to create a negative impression. If the State opens more general schools in Muslim-dominated areas, the Madarsas will automatically shut down, he added.

Case Title : Anjum Kadari and another v. Union of India and others Diary No. 14432-2024, Managers Association Madaris Arabiya UP v. Union of India SLP(C) No. 7821/2024 and connected matters.