What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
NEW DELHI: The Uttar Pradesh government has told the Supreme Court that the Allahabad High Court’s decision to invalidate the entire Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, was unjustified. The state argued that only specific provisions, if necessary, should have been struck down rather than the entire Act.
Appearing on behalf of the state, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj contended that the regulatory nature of many provisions warranted a more balanced approach. “We argued that the entire Act need not be struck down. Adjustments could have been made by reviewing individual provisions,” Nataraj told a bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud.
The bench, also comprising Justices PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, queried whether the Uttar Pradesh government stood by its legislation. CJI Chandrachud asked, “Do you stand by your law? Can we record that you support the counter affidavit you filed before the High Court?”
In response, ASG Nataraj clarified, “The High Court struck down the Act, and we have accepted it. We have not filed a further Special Leave Petition (SLP).”
ALSO READ: BJP slams Kejriwal’s lavish spending on bungalow, demands transparency – THE NEW INDIAN
The Supreme Court has now started hearing the SLP filed by Anjum Kadari, represented by Advocate Sanjeev Malhotra, which challenges the Allahabad High Court’s judgment declaring the Madarsa Act unconstitutional. Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, representing the petitioners, criticized the High Court for overstepping by striking down the Act, which began as a service dispute case.
In April, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment and issued notices regarding the SLP. CJI Chandrachud noted that while ensuring quality education is in the public interest, it must be assessed whether scrapping the entire Act is necessary to achieve this goal.
The Allahabad High Court’s ruling, passed by a bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, struck down the Act, citing it as incompatible with secularism and various constitutional provisions, including Articles 14, 21, and 21A. The court further argued that education under the Madarsa Act was not on par with the quality and universality of education provided in other state-recognized institutions.
The case remains under consideration by the Supreme Court, which will evaluate whether the Madarsa Act should be upheld or amended.
