The Supreme Court announced it will schedule final hearings for the petitions challenging the Allahabad High Court’s decision to invalidate the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004. The high court had deemed the Act unconstitutional and in violation of secular principles.

On April 5, the Supreme Court stayed the high court’s ruling, stating that the issues raised in the seven petitions required “closer reflection.” The bench, led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, will hear the pleas on August 13.

Lawyer Ruchira Goel has been appointed as the nodal counsel to ensure the electronic filing of a common compilation of documents. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing one of the petitioners, mentioned that a contempt petition against the state government has also been filed.

The Supreme Court indicated that the issues for adjudication are narrow. “The object and purpose of the Madarsa board is regulatory in nature, and the Allahabad HC is not prima facie correct that the establishment of the board will breach secularism,” the court stated. The bench had previously criticized the high court for misconstruing the Madarsa Act’s provisions, which do not mandate religious instruction.

The court had also expressed concerns over the high court’s directive to relocate students, affecting approximately 1.7 million students. “The direction to relocate students to other schools was not warranted,” the Supreme Court noted.

The state government, represented by Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, defended the Act but acknowledged the high court’s ruling. Nataraj explained that while the state accepts the judgment, it should not bear the financial burden of repealing the legislation, as the state supports madarsas with an annual aid of Rs 1,096 crore.

The high court’s March 22 ruling had declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, “unconstitutional” and against secularism. The court directed the state government to integrate madarsa students into the formal education system. The high court deemed the Act ultra vires, stating that the state lacks the authority to create a board solely for religious education or for a particular religion.

The petitioner, advocate Anshuman Singh Rathore, had challenged the constitutionality of the Act and criticized the management of madarsas by the Minority Welfare Department rather than the education department.