The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the Allahabad High Court's recent decision to declare the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act as unconstitutional. This decision comes after meticulous scrutiny of the legal arguments put forth, underscoring the complexities inherent in balancing regulatory oversight with constitutional principles.

A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra passed the stay order, noting prima facie inaccuracies in the High Court's views on the matter.

The High Court's decision, rendered on March 22, had significant implications, as it not only struck down the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 but also ordered the relocation of students currently enrolled in madrasas across the state. This decision affected approximately 17 lakh students and 16,000 madrasas in Uttar Pradesh, prompting immediate legal action. 

The apex court emphasized that the Madarsa Act primarily serves a regulatory purpose and does not solely focus on religious instruction, as interpreted by the High Court. This assertion forms the crux of the legal dispute, highlighting differing interpretations of the Act's objectives and implications.

Read: SLP in SC challenges striking down of UP Madarsa Act.

Senior advocates, including AM Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Huzefa Ahmadi, Menaka Guruswamy, and Salman Kurshid, representing the appellants, vehemently argued in favor of the diverse curriculum and educational offerings provided by madrasas beyond religious studies. 

They underscored the vital role these institutions play in imparting holistic education to students across Uttar Pradesh. Conversely, arguments were made citing constitutional restrictions on imparting religious instruction in schools under Article 28(1). The attorney general for the State of Uttar Pradesh informed the Court that the State had accepted the High Court's judgment and would not defend the validity of the Madarsa Act.

The High Court's ruling not only questioned the Act's constitutionality but also mandated the relocation of madrasa students, impacting a significant number of children and institutions in the state. This directive prompted the Supreme Court to intervene, recognizing the potential adverse effects on education access for thousands of students across Uttar Pradesh.

Case: Anjum Kadari and anr vs. Union of India and ors.