The Supreme Courton Tuesday reserved verdict after concluding hearing the arguments from all the stakeholders arguing the validity of Allahabad High Court's judgment that struck down the 'Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004' as unconstitutional. The top court today questioned the counsel appearing for the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) if it had issued similar directions to other religious community to not send children to Monastry or a paathshaala like it did for Madrasas.
The bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud asked the counsel appearing for NCPCR if its has issued directions to ban other religious institutes and why is the child rights body only interested in Madrasas.
"Our country is a melting pot of cultures, civilizations, religions, let us preserve that. The Act is to bring them into mainstream. Otherwise you are essentially putting people in a silo," CJI remarked.
The counsel appearing for the NCPCR said that the system we are dealing with is giving too much focus on religious education and out of the key stakeholders the children remain the most ignored. The counsel said that the NCPCR is not against religious instruction, but it is of the view that the religious instructions should not be made compulsory. The child rights body contended that religious education should not be conflated with free and compulsory education.
CJI Chandrachud while hearing the counsel asked if NCPCR issued similar guidelines for other religious institutions or not?
The counsel replied that NCPCR has issued repeated instructions to state govts that religious instructions not be confused as compulsory education.
"Have you issued instructions that do not send children to monastries etc? why are you only interested in Madrasas? .....has NCPCR adopted a similar stand that this is contrary to fundamental values?" CJI Chandrachud asked.
Justice JB Pardiwala asked if NCPCR has studied the entire syllabus taught in Madrasas?
"It seems you all are mesmerised by the word 'religious instructions'...the entire basis of this is incorrect," Justice Pardiwala remarked.
He further asked if NCPCR is making an argument that children going to Madrasas will not live a dignified life.
NCPCR's counsel however said that the state is by-passing its obligation under Article 21A which maked Right to Education a fundamental right. The counsel said that the child rights body has no problem if religious instructions are treated as supplementary education. But, it is opposed to it being treated as an alternative education.
Senior Advocate MR Shamshad raised objections to affidavit filed by NCPCR in the top court in the case. He said that the "report relied upon by the NCPCR in their affidavit is termed ' Fundamental Rights of Children v. Madrasas'... I cannot read it in open, it has all islamophobic content and relied upon news reports and given to media to publicise."
The NCPCR affidavit had flagged "inappropriate content" pushed by Darul Uloom Deoband, an academic body of Islamic education that has affiliating madrasas across South Asia. The NCPCR said it came across various objectionable content on the website of Darul-Uloom-Deoband wherein one of the fatwas was issued regarding physical relationship with a minor girl, which is not only misleading but is also in violation of the provisions under the POCSO Act, 2012.
The child protection body told the court that some of these objectionable content is allegedly being taught in the madrasas.
The affidavit stated that the Madrasa Board is depriving children of their Fundamental Right by imparting only religious and Islamic education. Explaining this, NCPCR told the court that the education imparted to children in madrasas is not comprehensive, and is therefore against the provisions of the Right to Education Act, 2009.
According to NCPCR, Darul Uloom Deoband has been issuing fatwas that are exposing children to hatred against one’s own country and eventually causing them unnecessary mental and physical suffering.
The counsel appearing for Uttar Pradesh told the Supreme Court today that the Allahabad High Court should not have struck down the UP Board of Madarsa Education 2004 in its entirety.
Additional Solicitor General of India KM Nataraj submitted that the High Court should have only struck down the provisions which are violative of the fundamental rights instead of nullifying the entire regulatory framework.
