The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Friday, declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, “unconstitutional” and violative of the principle of secularism.
A division bench comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Subhash Vidyarthi also directed the Uttar Pradesh government to plan a scheme to accommodate students currently studying in madrasas into the formal education system.
The bench declared the law ultra vires on a writ petition filed by a person named Anshuman Singh Rathore.
The ruling comes months after the state government decided to survey the Islamic educational institutions in the state. It had also formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) in October 2023 to probe madrasas’ funds from abroad.
Rathore had challenged the constitutional validity of the UP Madarsa Board as well as objected to the management of madrasas by the Minority Welfare department, both of the Union of India and the state government.
Following the decision of the High Court, all grants, i.e., financial aid received from the government to the grant-in-aid madrasas will cease, and such madrasas will be abolished.
Meanwhile, UP Madarsa Education Board Chairman Iftikhar Ahmed Javed expressed his dismay over the court’s verdict.
“I am surprised by the court verdict which has termed the UP Madarsa Education Act, 2004 as unconstitutional. It is an important decision by the High Court and the Board will study the verdict,” he said.
Javed said the financial grants given by the state government to the recognised madrasas was not for promoting religious education but for the study of Arabic and Persian languages. He said Koran was taught in madrasas as per of the study of the Arabic language.
He said after 20 years, the Madarsa Education Act had been declared unconstitutional and it seems there was a communication gap and the government counsel in the High Court could not place the objective facts before the court.
Senior member of All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) Maulana Khalid Rashid Farangi Mahali said the order should be challenged in the Supreme Court.
