SLP in SC challenges striking down of UP Madarsa Act

SLP in SC challenges striking down of UP Madarsa Act

The recent decision by the Allahabad High Court to declare the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 as unconstitutional has sparked a legal battle that now awaits review by the Supreme Court. The move comes after an appeal was filed challenging the High Court's ruling, which struck down the Act aimed at regulating madrasa education in the state.

Anjum Kadari, represented by Advocate Sanjeev Malhotra, has filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) contesting the Allahabad High Court's ruling that struck down the aforementioned act as unconstitutional.

The High Court, through a division bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudary and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, issued its judgment in response to a petition filed by Anushuman Singh Rathore. Rathore challenged the constitutionality of the UP Madarsa State Board Act 2004 along with certain provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2012.

Central to the High Court's decision was the assertion that the Madarsa Act contradicts principles of secularism and violates articles 14, 21, and 21A of the Indian Constitution. 

The court argued that the act fails to ensure the universal and quality education guaranteed by the Constitution, particularly when compared to education provided by other recognized educational institutions.

Moreover, the High Court scrutinized the placement of Madarsa education under the Minority Welfare Ministry of the State of U.P., contrasting it with educational institutions of other minority communities, such as Jains, Sikhs, and Christians, which fall under the purview of the Education Ministry. This discrepancy raised questions about the fairness and equity in the administration of education policies and resources.

In its ruling, the High Court emphasized the State's obligation to maintain secularism in all its endeavors, including education. It underscored the State's duty to provide equal treatment to all religions and ensure that educational opportunities are not based on religious affiliations.

Case: Anjum Kadari & Anr vs UOI.

Share this News

Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy