Back
2007 Supreme(All) 893
[2007(6) ADJ 736]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, ANJUMAN MADARSA NOORUL ISLAM, DEHRA KALAN, GHAZIPUR AND ANOTHER .....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS .........Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34892 of 2004, decided on 5th April, 2007)
Counsel :
Ch. N.A. Khan and Yashwant Singh for the Petitioners; S.M.A. Kazmi, Adv. General, Dr. Ashok Nigam, Addl. Solicitor General of India, Ashok Khare, S.C. Dwivedi, Bhola Nath Yadav, J.K. Tiwari, S.S. Tiwari, C.P. Mishra, Mohd. Sabbir, S.P. Kesarwani, S.C. for the Respondents.
Headnote:(A) Education—Grant-in-aid—To Madarsas of State of U.P.—And recognising Madarsas for grant-in-aid by State Government—Petition seeking directions to State of U.P. by Committee of Management, for quashing impugned order, recognising 67 Madarsas for grant-in-aid—And to recognise petitioner's Madarsa for grant-in-aid—Held, (i) State of U.P. directed to consider applications of petitioners and O.P. 4 and 6, or other applications of other institutions, founded by Muslim community, for recognition of grant-in-aid, in a similarly situated manner, as other non-minority Institutions, are being dealt with in accordance with law, without any discrimination, (ii) Union and State to take appropriate steps to modify Notification, dt. 23-10-1993 issued by Union of India accordingly; (iii) That Chief Secretary of State of U.P. to initiate an enquiry into serious allegations of corruption made by petitioners in its writ petition; (iv) That enquiry shall be made for orders passed, recognising institution for grant-in-aid from year, 2003 upto now—Hence, ordered accordingly. [Constitution of India—Articles 29, 30 and 51-A—National Minority Commission Act, 1992—Section 2(c)]. [Paras 152, 153 and 154]
(B) Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 29 and 30—Muslim Religious Community—Protection under—Held, Muslim Religious Community now, are not entitled to get any protection under Articles 29 and 30 as a religious minority community in Uttar Pradesh—Muslims have now ceased to be religious minorities in India, and in any case, in State of Uttar Pradesh, on basis of their population and strength—Further, as Muslim community are part and parcel of society—And part of Indian citizenry, Madarsas established by them, are entitled to have equal treatment, in comparison to other Schools/Institutions, established by other citizens of India—Therefore, as now Muslims have ceased to be a religious minority—And they are entitled to be treated like other citizens of India—All protections given under Articles 29 and 30 of Constitution, are not available to them. [Paras 137, 143, 150 and 152]
(C) Religion—Is a matter of particular thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, involving conscience, man's relationships to divinity, moral obligations—And has reverence of one’s views of his relationship to creator. [Para 36]
Hon’ble S.N. Srivastava, J.—By way of this writ petition, the petitioner No. 1- Committee of Management of Anjuman Madarsa Noorul Islam Dehra Kalan, Ghazipur (hereinafter referred to as the Madarsa), and the petitioner No. 2, is the Manager of the Madarsa, pray for quashing the impugned order dated 17.5.2004 passed by the State of U.P., recognising 67 Madarsas for grant-in-aid. They further prayed for to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the State of U.P. to recognise the petitioners Madarsa for Grant-in-Aid and any other further suitable relief which this Court deems proper.
2. In the year 1995-96, out of 204 Madarsas which were founded and recognized by the Muslims minority were recommended for grant-in-aid, out of which 68 Madarsas were recognized for grant-in-aid. By an order dated 17.5.2004, 67 other remaining Madarsas were again recognised for grant-in-aid. In 2006 out of remaining 66, 32 Madarsas were recognised for grant-in-aid. The grievance of the petitioners is that though petitioners Madarsa was also founded by Muslim religion minority and was permanently recognised altogether, but the State of U.P. refused this for grant-in-aid, though it fully satisfies all the norms. It was further pleaded by the petitioners that the opposite parties No. 4 to 6 are such Madarsas which do not satisfy the criteria for recognition for grant-in-aid and are private Madarsa in which all the family members of the Manager are teachers and employees and other requirements are also not satisfied. It was further pleaded that though the Madarsa at Sl. Nos. 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 29 and 30 in the list of recognised minority institutions for Grant-in-Aid are also founded by the Muslim minority but they also did not fulfil any norms, but were wrongly recognised for grant-in-aid, ignoring the petitioners Madarsa.
3. Learned Counsel for the parties were heard on 3.11.2006 and the matter was placed on 7.11.2006 for further hearing. During the course of the arguments certain questions relating to minority arose. As the petitioners and the opposite parties No. 4 to 6 were claiming themselves as minority institutions founded by the Muslim religion minority notified under Section 2(c) of the National Minority Commission Act, 1992 by Notification dated 23.10.1993, the question arose to be considered what is the definition of Minority and who could be recognised as religious minority and its criteria for recognition. This Court by a detailed order dated 18.12.2006 framed certain issues and also issued notices to the Union of India, Registrar General, Census, New Delhi and National Commission for Minority, New Delhi. The order dated 18.12.2006 passed by this Court is being reproduced as follows :
"Sri N.A. Khan, learned Counsel for petitioner states that petitioner has moved an application on 23rd November, 2006 to the competent authority, but no communication has been made so far to from the competent authority as to the order passed on the application.
On the other hand, Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned Counsel representing opp. Parties, states that for the purpose of determining whether petitioner is an minority institution and is entitled to inclusion as such in the list of aided institutions, a Committee has been constituted and an enquiry in this regard is going on about all the Institution which are claiming grant-in-aid as minority institutions. As petitioner and other Institutions are claiming benefit of Minority Institutions being a group of Muslim community and a similar controversy is also involved in Writ Petition No. 42265 of 2006, this writ petition is also connected with Writ Petition No. 42265 of 2006.
In Writ Petition No. 42265 of 2006, this Court on 11th December, 2006 has framed certain issues, which are as under :
"(i) What is the definition of minority?
(ii) Who could be recognized as a member of minority religion and what would be the criteria for recognizing minority?
(iii) Whether minority could be recognized at national
