Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy: https://legally-speaking.in/high-court/allahabad-hc-declares-up-board-of-madrasa-education-act-unconstitutional/

Context:

The Supreme Court is hearing a matter that could redefine religious education in India. 

Details

The case involves the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 (Madarsa Act), which combines the NCERT curriculum with Islamic teachings. The Allahabad High Court struck down this law, arguing it breached secularism and the Right to Education.

Why this case is important?

Secularism

The High Court highlighted the Constitution's demand for equal treatment of all religions. It found the Madarsa Act forced students into Islamic studies, violating the state's duty to provide secular education.

Right to Education

Article 21A of the Constitution ensures free, compulsory education for children aged 6-14. The High Court argued that madrasas focused too much on religious teachings, neglecting modern subjects.

Conflict with Central Law

The High Court noted that madrasas granting degrees violated the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, which reserves this right for universities or approved institutions.

Supreme Court hearings: 2 major questions emerged

Religious Education v/s Religious Instruction

The Supreme Court examined if madrasas offer neutral religious education or enforce religious instruction, which isn't allowed in state-recognized schools. 

In a previous case (Aruna Roy v/s Union of India, 2002), the Supreme Court made a distinction between “religious education” (learning about religion) and “religious instruction” (learning to follow a specific religion). 

Religious instruction is not allowed in state-recognized schools, but teaching about religions for broader knowledge and communal harmony is allowed. So, the question here is whether madrasas are offering neutral religious education or pushing religious instruction.

Should the entire law be struck down?

While the High Court struck down the entire Act, the Supreme Court questioned if only problematic sections needed adjustment, preserving madrasas' operations. The Chief Justice suggested modifying the Act to ensure secular education without disrupting traditions.

The Allahabad High Court completely rejected the Madarsa Act, but the Supreme Court is questioning if it was too harsh. Instead of rejecting the whole law, maybe the problematic parts could be regulated while still keeping the madrasas running.

The Chief Justice suggested that simply scrapping the law could cause more harm than good. The state could modify the Act to make education more secular while still respecting the community's traditions.

Way Forward

The Supreme Court's verdict will ripple beyond Uttar Pradesh, potentially reshaping religious education across India. The decision will set a framework on how secularism, education rights, and religious teachings coexist in schools. This verdict has the potential to redefine how schools balance religious and secular education in the future.

Must Read Articles: 

MADRASAS

NCERT

Section 12(1)(C) of The Right Of Children To Free And Compulsory Education Act, 2009

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN INDIA

FREEDOM OF RELIGION

Source: 

Indian Express

PRACTICE QUESTION Q.Consider the following statements in the context of the Right to Education Act (RTE): 1. The 86th Constitutional Amendment Act inserted Article 21A to provide the right to education for children aged 6 to 14 years. 2. It defines a Student-Teacher ratio of 20:1 for primary schools. 3. It mandates that private schools to reserve 15% of their seats for children from disadvantaged and weaker sections. How many of the above statements are correct? A) Only one B) Only two C) All three D) None Answer: A Explanation: Statement 1 is correct: The 86th Amendment to the Indian Constitution inserted Article 21A. This amendment made education a fundamental right for children aged 6 to 14 years, ensuring every child within this age group has the right to free and compulsory education. Statement 2 is incorrect: The RTE Act prescribes a student-teacher ratio of 30:1 for primary schools. This ratio is designed to ensure that each teacher can effectively manage and provide quality education to their students, improving learning outcomes and attention to individual student needs. Statement 3 is incorrect: The RTE Act mandates that private schools reserve 25% of their seats for children from disadvantaged and weaker sections. This provision is aimed at ensuring inclusivity and equal opportunities for children from all backgrounds, promoting social equity through education.