Allahabad High Court Stays State Action Against 27 Madarsas

In a major interim relief for over two dozen madarsas in Uttar Pradesh’s Shrawasti district, the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday stayed any coercive action or demolition steps by the state government in response to the notices that allegedly prohibit these institutions from imparting religious education.

The bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh passed the order while hearing a batch of 27 writ petitions filed by various madarsas, who argued that the state’s notices—most dated May 1, 2025—were not only never served on them but also appeared to be issued in a mechanical fashion. Each of the notices reportedly carried the same reference number—No. 56—despite being addressed to different institutions.

Court took serious note of this claim, observing that the uniformity in numbering suggested a lack of due application of mind. “Prima facie, the case for intervention is made out,” the bench remarked, adding that even though the state was granted time earlier to produce records, it had failed to do so.

The petitioners—represented by a battery of advocates including Aviral Raj Singh, Ali Moid, and Ashutosh Verma—submitted that the notices not only lacked specificity and procedural integrity but were also issued without any reference to the Uttar Pradesh Non-Governmental Arabic and Persian Madarsa Recognition, Administration and Services Regulations, 2016, except in three cases.

Further, the madarsas cited a recent precedent—Writ-C No. 4464 of 2025, where a similar notice issued to Maktab Anwarul Uloom was set aside by the court after finding that no hearing had been granted to the institution. The petitioners in the present case argued that their situation was identical and that they too had been denied a fair hearing.

Arguing for the state, the standing counsel sought two weeks’ time to file a counter-affidavit and admitted that the notices carried the same number, while failing to offer a substantive explanation for the identical wording or procedural lapses.

Court expressed concern that the language of the notices reflected a predetermined decision rather than a genuine inquiry, defeating the purpose of a show-cause mechanism. “Where any notice in the nature of a show cause is issued, it must be issued with sufficient particularity so that the noticee can respond specifically and can know what charge is to be replied,” the court emphasized.

Granting interim relief, the court directed that “no coercive action or demolitions shall be taken against the petitioners” until the next date of listing, July 3, 2025.

Case Title: Madarsa Moinul Islam Qasmiya Samiti And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Minority Welfare Govt. Lko And 4 Others