An appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court contesting the verdict of the Allahabad High Court. It has declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 unconstitutional. The appeal was represented by advocate Sanjeev Malhotra and drawn by advocate Pradeep Kumar Yadav. It challenges the decision of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court rendered on March 22.
Madrasas/ madarsas refer to institutions where Islamic studies and other education may be pursued by students.
The Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, aimed to regulate and oversee the functioning of madrasas. It also regulates educational institutions where Islamic studies and other subjects are taught. However, the High Court bench comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Subhash Vidyarthi deemed the Act unconstitutional. Thus, citing violations of the principles of secularism enshrined in the Constitution of India.
The Court held that the establishment of a board for religious education by the State contravened the secular ethos of the Constitution, emphasizing that the State cannot discriminate based on religion in its educational policies. The High Court found the Madarsa Act in violation of various constitutional provisions. This is including Articles 14, 21, and 21-A, along with Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
Furthermore, the High Court directed the State to ensure the seamless transition of students from madrasas to other educational institutions. These are situated in Uttar Pradesh. In response, the appeal has been lodged before the Supreme Court, seeking a review of the High Court’s decision.
This appeal signifies a crucial legal battle over the constitutional validity of the Madarsa Act. Moreover, its implications for religious and educational rights in Uttar Pradesh.
Reference: Allahabad High Court Verdict, Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, Constitution of India
