Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court today allowed the intervention application filed by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and permitted it to intervene in the proceedings pertaining to the issue of religious education being imparted on the government's expense.

The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh also appointed Advocate S.M. Singh Raikwar as amicus curiae in the matter. Justice Singh observed, "The matter is of wide ramification and some importance and outcome of this case will affect the education system as well as the rights of the children studying in Madarsas". 

Today, the counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment on the ground of his ill health, but considering the submissions advanced by Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi on behalf of NCPCR and the counsel representing Union of India and the state government in the matter, court went on to allow the NCPCR's plea. 

The court is currently seized with a writ petition filed by one Azaj Ahamad, a teacher in a Madarsa located in Samdaniya Islamia, Shudnipur, District-Jaunpur pertaining to his salary dispute. During the course of earlier hearings in the matter, the court had noted that the concerned Madarsa, besides the normal curriculum, is also imparting religious education.

Consequently, in the month of March this year, court directed the Centre as well as the State government to file their respective replies to explain as to how on the funding provided by the Government Exchequer, religious education be imparted and whether this could be in violation of Articles 14, 25, 26, 29, and 30 of the Constitution of India.

Taking note of the issue concerned in the present matter, the NCPCR filed an intervention application last week stating that since the matter before the court requires keen consideration and therefore, it seeks to assist the court.

In the intervention application, NCPCR stated that the "education imparted to children in Madrasas is not adequate/ comprehensive and as such the same is against the provisions of Right to Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act)".

"Madrasas being out of this definition have no right to compel children or their families to receive Madrasa education. A Madrasa is not only an unsuitable/unfit place to receive 'fundamental' education but also they are run in absence of benefits to the children as provided under Sections 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 29 of the RTE Act, 2009," NCPCR stated.

The application further stated that Madrasas not only render an unsatisfactory model for education but also have an arbitrary mode of working in the absence of a curriculum and evaluation procedure as laid down under Section 29 of the RTE Act, 2009.

Today, counsel appearing for the Union of India, Adv Rakesh Tewari, informed the court that UOI's counter affidavit will be filed within a period of two weeks and also, standing counsel for the state government, Adv Sandeep Sharma submitted that counter affidavit on behalf of the State will also be filed within a period of two weeks.

The court will hear the matter next on May 30, 2023. 

Case Title: Azaj Ahmad v. State of UP