Will the Madrassa Act survive? Supreme Court decides today: 10 points

1. On March 22, the Allahabad High Court had declared Uttar Pradesh's 2004 madrassa law “unconstitutional” and against secularism. It had asked the state to bring madrassa students into the formal education system.

2. The Supreme Court's decision – intended for regular education – was challenged in the Supreme Court.

3. During the hearing, the Supreme Court had noted that religious education in itself is not the problem.

4. Instead of abolishing the law, it could be ensured that madrassa education is broad-based and that essential subjects are taught alongside it, the judges had said.

5. Striking down the entire law is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, the bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud had said. It would also leave madrassa education completely unregulated and create silos.

6. Regulating madrassas was in the national interest as hundreds of years of the country's composite culture could not be diverted by creating silos for minorities, the Chief Justice had said.

7. “Religious instruction is not just for Muslims. It is for Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, etc. The country is supposed to be a melting pot of cultures, civilizations and religions. Let us keep it that way,” said the Bench of Justices. DY Chandrachud, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra had said.

8. Those opposed to the law, and the National Commission for the Protection of the Rights of the Child, have argued that madrassa education negates the promise of quality education guaranteed by the Constitution. Religious education, they have argued, cannot replace regular education.

9. The state government had said it supported the law and was of the view that the Supreme Court should not have held the entire law as unconstitutional.

10. In April, the top court had stayed the High Court order, allowing madrassas to function across the state.

Post a comment