Secularism means live and let live, says Supreme Court in Madrasa Act case

The Supreme Court said that "throwing" out the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, was like "throwing out the baby with the bathwater".

In Short

• To throw out the act is like throwing out the baby with bathwater, the top court said
• SC questioned NCPCR's stance, asked why focus was only on madrasas
• Petitioners claimed High Court judgement would affect 26 lakh students

The Supreme Court of India has reserved its judgement on the challenge to the striking down of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 by the Allahabad High Court. The court emphasised that "secularism means to live and let live," highlighting the importance of accommodating diverse religious instruction in education.

During the hearing, the High Court noted that the education provided under the Madarsa Education Act, 2004 is "certainly not equivalent" to that in other state-recognized educational institutions, raising concerns about the quality and universality of madrasa education.

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, leading the three-judge bench, remarked, "Ultimately, we have to see it through the broad sweep of the country-religious instructions are there in Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, etc. The country ought to be a melting pot of cultures, civilisations, and religions." He added, "To throw out the act is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater."

Justice JB Pardiwala addressed arguments made by senior advocate Gurukrishna Kumar, stating, "The study of religion is therefore not prohibited by the Constitution, and this is where your argument that they are being deprived of mainstream education fails."

Kumar argued that the madrasa syllabus primarily consists of theological studies, stating, "What is provided as syllabus and course content is only a sprinkling of secular education."

Chief Justice Chandrachud responded to concerns about religious education, asserting, "Firstly, religious instructions are never an anathema in our country... In India, can we say that the meaning of education cannot include religious instruction? It's essentially a religious country."

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi highlighted the importance of Article 28(2), which allows religious instruction under charitable trusts. He contended that striking down the Madrasa Act would violate fundamental rights by removing religious instruction opportunities.

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud noted, "If a student wants to voluntarily obtain instructions, then it is covered under 28(3)... but you cannot compel the student."

Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, representing an intervenor, argued that madrasa education undermines the promise of quality education guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution, stating, "While one has the freedom to take religious instruction, it cannot be accepted as a substitute for mainstream education."

Senior Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi, representing the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), emphasised that madrasas should not be viewed as substitutes for mainstream education.

In response, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud asked, "Has NCPCR banned other religious institutions or not? Is it NCPCR's position that young children should not be deprived of religious instruction?"

The Chief Justice further enquired, "Have you issued instructions against sending children to monasteries? Why is your focus only on madrasas? Has NCPCR taken a stance that this is contrary to fundamental values?"

Chaturvedi indicated that she would seek instructions and file a statement accordingly.

Justice JB Pardiwala also questioned NCPCR, asking, "Has NCPCR studied the entire syllabus? It seems you are captivated by the term 'religious instructions'-the entire foundation of your arguments is flawed. There are no instructions. There is a crucial distinction between the religious instruction referred to in Article 28 and the medium through which education is delivered."

The case was brought forward by Anjum Kadari and the Managers Association Madaris Arabiya, challenging the Allahabad High Court's ruling on the grounds of secularism and violations of Articles 14, 21, and 21A of the Indian Constitution.

The petitioners claim that the judgement will negatively impact around 10,000 madrasa teachers and over 26 lakh students.