1 Permission to file the Special Leave Petition granted.

2 A public interest petition was instituted by an advocate before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The petition challenged the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 20041 as its principal relief. Apart from the above challenge, the petition also questioned the validity of certain provisions of Sections 1(5) and 2 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009. Finally, the petition sought imposition upon all Madarsas of the National Education Policy 2020.

“Madarsa Act”

Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Date: 2024.04.08 18:45:30 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified By its impugned judgment and order dated 22 March 2024, a Division Bench of the High Court held that:

(i) The Madarsa Act is ultra vires and is unconstitutional; and (ii) The State Government shall, in consequence, take steps for accommodating all Madarsa students in regular schools recognized under the Primary Education Board and the High School and Intermediate Education Board of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

The High Court has come to the conclusion that the Madarsa Act, in question, inter alia, violates the principle of secularism which forms a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and is violative, inter alia, of Articles 14, 21 and 21-A of the Constitution.

4 The correctness of the judgment is in question in these proceedings.

5 We have heard Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mr Mukul Rohatgi, Mr P S Patwalia, Mr Huzefa A Ahmadi, Mr Salman Khurshid and Dr Menaka Guruswamy, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

Mr R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India, appears for the Union of India.

Mr K M Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General, appears on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh. We have heard Mr S Guru Krishnakumar, Mr V Chitambaresh, Ms Swarupama Chaturvedi and Ms Archana Pathak Dave, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenors.

Assailing the correctness of the judgment of the High Court, the broad submissions which have been urged by senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners are set out below:

(i) The Madarsa Act is principally a regulatory statute which deals with issues, such as:

(a) curriculum;

(b) instruction;

(c) standard of education;

(d) conduct of examinations; and (e) qualifications for teaching;

(ii) The statute which was the subject matter of the challenge does not provide for religious instruction and is not in conflict with Article 28(1) of the Constitution. The functions of the Board of Madarsa Education2 are of a regulatory nature;

(iii) The State legislature is competent to enact the law having due regard to the provisions of Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution;

(iv) Imparting religious instruction is proscribed by Article 28(1) in an educational institution which is wholly maintained out of State funds.

However, the imparting of religious education, per se, in secular “Board”

institutions has not been proscribed by the Constitution as elucidated in the judgment of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ms Aruna Roy v Union of India3;

(v) The impugned judgment of the High Court has unsettled the position which held the field both before the enactment of the statute and after, since Madarsa education dates back to 120 years in the State of Uttar Pradesh;

(vi) The High Court has conflated the provisions of Article 28 of the Constitution with Article 30;

(vii) Out of nearly 16,000 Madarsas in the State of Uttar Pradesh, only about 560 are in the receipt of State aid;

(viii) The direction which has been issued by the High Court causes serious prejudice since as many as 17 lakh students who are receiving education in Madarsa institutions will have to be relocated. Apart from this, over 10,000 teachers who have been imparting ed