Why have madrasas been in the spotlight in Uttar Pradesh?

Why did the Supreme Court stay a ruling of the Allahabad High Court on the U.P. Board of Madrasa Education Act 2004? What was the aftermath of the U.P.’s government’s survey on madrasas?

The story so far:

This past week, the Supreme Court stayed a ruling of the Allahabad High Court on the U.P. Board of Madrasa Education Act 2004 calling it an infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The top court also found the High Court’s ruling to be against the principles of secularism. The decision gave massive relief to around 17 lakh students of the State’s 16,000 recognised madrasas.

What happened?

Earlier, the High Court had dubbed the U.P. Board of Madrasa Education Act “unconstitutional” and asked for immediate closure of the madrasas. It called for the relocation and integration of the madrasa students with regular schools. The Supreme Court called the High Court’s ruling “not warranted” and imposed a stay on the relocation.

The threejudge Supreme Court Bench, headed by Chief Justice D.Y.

Chandrachud, scrutinised the provisions of the Act and made it clear that “the object and purpose of the statutory board which is constituted under the Act is regulatory in nature.” The apex court did not agree with the High Court’s ruling on educational institutions funded by the State being prohibited from imparting religious instruction. The Bench cited a 2002 judgment clarifying the term “religious instruction.” The judges felt that striking down the 2004 Act was not the solution towards making a provision for secular education alongside religious instruction.

Why are madrasas in the spotlight?

Uttar Pradesh has around 25,000 madrasas of which 16,500 are recognised by the U.P. Madrasa Education Board. Only 560 madrasas receive grants from the government though there have been complaints in recent years of delayed payment and arrears in salaries. The irregular madrasas are usually strapped for resources and manage to provide only elementary learning.

The latest case in the Supreme Court is in continuation of a long trail of madrasas being the focus of attention. In 2022, the U.P. Government ordered a survey of the State’s madrasas to find out the number of unrecognised or illegal madrasas. Though the findings of the complete survey were not made public, the State government caused a ripple in Muslim education circles when in October 2023, irregular madrasas operating in the western U.P. township of Muzaffarnagar were ordered to be closed within 24 hours. The Basic Education Department issued a notice to these educational institutions stating that unregistered madrasas operating in Muzaffarnagar would be subject to a daily penalty of ₹10,000 if they were not able to submit relevant documents within three days of the notice.

The move upset minority organisations, with the Jamiat UlamaiHind calling the move discriminatory. “These madrasas provide free education to around 10,000 students. They will not have the resources to pay the fine. The order seems targeted at a particular community,” a Jamiat official had then said. Around the same time, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was formed to investigate the sources of the madrasas’ alleged foreign funding. The

SIT claimed that the madrasas had received over ₹100 crore from abroad over the past three years though evidence was not shared with the public.

What next?

Madrasas have been under the spotlight since the Yogi Adityanath government was first sworn in 2017. At the time, the government had instructed madrasas to hoist the national flag and sing the national anthem on Independence Day. The circular issued by the U.P. Madrasa Shiksha Parishad also asked these schools to videograph and photograph the Independence Day function as evidence. The order upset many madrasas who claimed it called into question their patriotism.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court Bench on the U.P. Board Madrasa Education Act case has asked the State to file its counter affidavit before May 31. It has also given the appellants time till June 30 to respond to the State’s views. It will hear the arguments in the second week of July.