The Supreme Court of India
Credit: PTI File Photo
New Delhi: A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High Court's March 22, 2024 decision declaring the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, as unconstitutional and violative of secularism and fundamental rights.
The petition, filed on behalf of Anjum Kadari, through advocates Pradeep Kumar Yadav and Sanjeev Malhotra, contended the High Court has committed grave error by way of passing a judicial order to encroach upon the power of legislature and kept in abeyance law laid down by this court in catena of judgments.
“The High Court was failed to appreciate the true facts of the case that Article 14, 21-A and Article 29 (2) R/w Article 30 (1), is equal not in consonance and committed grave injustice against society as whole,” the plea claimed.
The petitioners sought interim stay on order passed by the high court. On March 22, a division bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Subhash Vidyarthi passed the order on a petition filed by one Anshuman Singh Rathore challenging the constitutional validity of the Act and certain provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2012.
The judgment came within months after the state government ordering survey of the Islamic education institutions in the state and also formed a special investigation team (SIT) in October 2023 to probe the funding of Madarsas from abroad.
The high court had held the 2004 Act as violative of Articles 14, 21 and 21-A of the Constitution of India and Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
"The State cannot, in any manner whatsoever, discriminate between religions while performing its duties. Since providing education is one of the primary duties of the State, it is bound to remain secular while exercising its powers in the said field. It cannot provide for education of a particular religion, its instructions, prescriptions and philosophies or create separate education systems for separate religions,” the HC had said.