NCPCR orders to shift madrasa students to schools stayed by SC
The Supreme Court barred the Centre and states from enforcing a series of orders issued by the NCPCR to shift students from madrasas to government schools.
The Supreme Court on Monday barred the Centre and states from enforcing a series of orders issued by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) to shift students from madrasas to government schools even as it emphasised that the State has a “vital interest” in ensuring that all children get quality and modern education.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud halted the implementation of a series of communications issued by both the Centre and the Uttar Pradesh and Tripura governments between June and August. These communications called for an inquiry into madrasas and recommended transferring their students to formal schooling under the government.
The letters directed education departments to enrol students in formal schools, but the bench, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, suspended this move, deciding to review the legality of such orders more thoroughly.
The bench also sought responses from the Centre and the states within four weeks to the a petition filed by Jamiat Ulema-I-Hind, a prominent Islamic organisation. The petition challenged the legality of the directives of the NCPCR, followed by the communications issued by the Centre and states. In addition, based on a request from senior counsel Indira Jaising, representing the petitioner, the bench ordered that all state governments and Union territories (UTs) be made parties to the matter to prevent them from issuing similar directives based on NCPCR’s recommendations.
This legal tussle followed an earlier decision by the Supreme Court on April 5 when it stayed a March ruling by the Allahabad high court that declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, unconstitutional. The high court ruled that the 2004 Act violated the principle of secularism. However, the Supreme Court clarified that its primary concern was not the Act itself but ensuring that students studying in madrasas receive a high standard of education. At that time, the bench refrained from issuing directions to the Uttar Pradesh government regarding the continued provision of state aid to madrasas, which amounts to approximately ₹1,098 crore annually.
A clutch of appeals against the high court’s March 22 judgment also came up for hearing on Monday when the bench emphasised that while religious and linguistic minorities have the constitutional right to establish and administer their educational institutions under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution, the State also has a “vital interest” in ensuring that children attending these institutions receive a modern and comprehensive education.
The court noted that children in madrasas typically spend about 12 years of their formative education within these institutions, and it is essential that they receive a broad-based education, enabling them to lead productive lives and contribute to society.
“State has a vital interest in ensuring children get suitable education and study all subjects so that they become worthy citizens and are employable once they leave these institutions,” said the bench, stressing that education should not only focus on religious instruction but also cover mainstream academic subjects.
During the hearing of these appeals, senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Salman Khurshid, PS Patwalia, Menaka Guruswamy and MR Shamshad, opposed the Allahabad high court’s judgment, arguing that the ruling dismantled a 120-year-old madrasa education system without considering that madrasas are required to follow state-mandated curriculum standards. The lawyers for the petitioners pointed out that while madrasas provide religious instruction, they also adhere to certain educational norms prescribed by the state.
They also cited a 2002 Supreme Court ruling in Aruna Roy Vs Union of India, which distinguished between religious instruction and the study of religion. The court had held that while religious instruction (focused solely on teaching a specific religion) was prohibited, the study of religion (a broader academic exploration of religious teachings) was permissible and even desirable in a secular educational framework.
Meanwhile, the fresh petition against NCPCR’s instructions, filed through advocate Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, argued that the NCPCR had overstepped its authority by issuing directives that undermined the rights of minorities to establish and administer their own educational institutions.
Jaising specifically referenced two letters issued by the NCPCR in June. The first letter, dated June 7, instructed the Uttar Pradesh government to transfer non-Muslim students studying in government-aided madrasas to government-run schools to provide them with formal education. A subsequent letter, dated June 25, recommended the transfer of all madrasa students to formal government schools. Following these communications, on June 26, the Uttar Pradesh government issued directives to district magistrates to implement NCPCR’s recommendations.
Furthermore, on July 10, the Department of Education and Literacy, part of the Union ministry of education, instructed all states and Union territories to conduct inquiries into the state of affairs in madrasas and transfer students to government schools. The state of Tripura issued a similar communication in August, directing the transfer of students from madrasas to formal schools.
Islamic organisation contended that NCPCR’s actions treated madrasa students as “chattel” and accused the commission of engaging in a politically motivated exercise of power, claiming that NCPCR’s actions violated the fundamental rights of minorities to run their own institutions. It further argued that neither the state nor the central government, and certainly not the NCPCR, had any legal authority to impose such sweeping measures across all madrasas.
The petition further stated that the commission had no jurisdiction to mandate the removal of students from madrasas and described the directives as whimsical, discriminatory, and unconstitutional. The petitioners asserted that the actions unfairly targeted institutions run by a single minority community and were driven by political motives.
Earlier, NCPCR, in its submissions before the Supreme Court, strongly criticised the madrasa education system, arguing that it violated children’s fundamental right to education. According to the commission, these institutions failed to comply with constitutional mandates and the Right to Education (RTE) Act. NCPCR, in its written submissions filed in September, urged the court to recognise the need to integrate general education with religious teachings in madrasas, arguing that the rigid focus on religious instruction deprived children of mainstream academic opportunities.
NCPCR also raised concerns about the content of some madrasa textbooks, particularly those that allegedly promoted the “supremacy of Islam”. The commission pointed out that several non-Muslim students were also enrolled in madrasas in states such as Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand, exacerbating concerns over the exclusive focus on religious teachings.