On Monday, the Supreme Court announced it will schedule final hearings on the challenges to the Allahabad High Court’s ruling that invalidated the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, deeming it “unconstitutional” and a violation of secularism principles.

The Supreme Court had previously stayed the high court’s decision on April 5, noting that the issues raised in the seven petitions deserved further examination.

Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, alongside Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, set August 13 for the final hearing of these petitions. The court also appointed lawyer Ruchira Goel as nodal counsel to manage the submission of a common document compilation in electronic form.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing one of the petitioners, mentioned that a contempt petition against the state government has been filed. Chief Justice Chandrachud indicated that, given the stay order, the court is prepared to proceed with final disposal of the case, noting that the issues at hand are relatively focused.

The Supreme Court observed that the Allahabad High Court’s ruling may have misinterpreted the Madarsa Act, which does not mandate religious instruction. The top court criticized the high court’s decision to relocate 17 lakh students as unjustified.

The Supreme Court has directed the state to file its counter by June 30, 2024, and plans to finalize the case in the second week of June 2024. The high court’s decision from March 22, 2024, remains stayed.

Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, representing Uttar Pradesh, defended the Act but acknowledged the high court’s ruling. He stated that while the state has accepted the judgment, it should not be financially burdened by it, and affirmed that no madrasas are being closed. Nataraj highlighted that the state incurs an annual cost of Rs 1,096 crore in aid to madrasas.

The high court’s ruling had deemed the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, unconstitutional, stating that the state lacked authority to create a board for religious education or manage education specific to a particular religion. This ruling followed a writ petition challenging both the constitutionality of the Act and the oversight of madarsas by the Minority Welfare Department rather than the education department.

Also read: UP Madrasa Board requests CM Yogi to initiate recognition for 8,000+ madrasas