Delhi HC admits CBI appeal challenging acquittals in 2G case

Terming the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Education Act, 2004 “unconstitutional”, the Allahabad High Court on Friday said the Act violates principles of secularism.

The court maintained that the State has no power to create a board for religious education or to establish a board for school education only for a particular religion and philosophy associated with it.

A Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Subhash Vidyarthi — while dealing with a writ petition filed by Anshuman Singh Rathore which had challenged the legality of the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Board on the ground that the same violated the principle of secularism and Articles 14, 15 and 21A of the Constitution — said it was the duty of the State to provide education, which is secular in nature, more particularly for minors, i.e., children up to the age of 18. “...it is the duty of the state to provide education which is secular in nature.

Students engaged in study inside a madrasa.

It cannot discriminate and provide different types of education to children belonging to different religions. Any such action on the part of state would be violative of secularism, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Such an action on the part of the state is not only unconstitutional but also highly divisive of the society on religious lines,” the court noted.

‘No equivalence’

It added that the State cannot hide behind the lame excuse that it is fulfilling its duty by providing traditional education on nominal fee.

“The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised on modern education with

modern subjects, an education that is universal in nature that prepares a child to make his future bright and to take this country forward. It does not prescribe, by any stretch of imagination, limited education with emphasis only upon a particular religion,” the court said.

On the submissions of the State about the substantial presence of madrasas in Uttar Pradesh, the court directed the government to take steps forthwith for accommodating these students in regular schools recognised under the Primary Education Board and schools recognised under the High School and Intermediate Education Board of Uttar Pradesh.

The Delhi High Court on Friday said the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had successfully put forth a case for “reappreciation of the entire evidence” in the 2G spectrum allocation case in which former Telecom Minister A. Raja, and others were acquitted in 2017.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said: “On the basis of material on record, and after going through the sworn testimonies, material on record, impugned judgment and the submissions made at Bar by both the parties...there is a prima facie case which requires deeper examination and reappreciation/reappraisal of entire evidence.”

The judge said during the hearing that he had noticed “some contradictions in the [2018] judgment itself, which require deeper examination”.

“The court at this stage is required to have a prima facie helicopter view. There may be a possibility that such contradictions are explained by the defence during the hearing,” the judge added.

The verdict came five years after the CBI approached the High Court challenging the trial court verdict acquitting the accused in the 2G case.

A. Raja

The High Court had reserved its decision on March 14. The case was currently at the stage of ‘leave to appeal’, which is a formal permission granted by a court to a party to challenge a decision in a higher court.

In December 2017, a Special CBI court here had acquitted Mr. Raja, DMK MP K. Kanimozhi and others in the CBI and Enforcement Directorate (ED) cases relating to the 2G case, noting that the prosecution had “miserably failed” to prove the charges.

The Special CBI court also acquitted 17 others, including late DMK supremo M. Karunanidhi’s wife Dayalu Ammal, Vinod Goenka, Asif Balwa, film producer Karim Morani, P. Amirtham and Sharad Kumar, director of Kalaignar TV, in the case.

On March 19, 2018, the ED approached the High Court challenging the special court’s order acquitting all the accused.