Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court has recently dismissed two writ petitions filed challenging the State Government's actions against petitioner Madarsas following a 2022 report by a Special Investigation Team inspecting Madarsas in Uttar Pradesh.

Pointing out that both the writ petitions were essentially alleging that the State Government's actions against them were ex-parte, therefore, the report of the SIT and consequent decisions should be quashed, the bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed that:

"The State Government is well empowered to take immediate action consistent with the Act, 2004 (U.P. Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004) without even making any reference to the Board (the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education ) under certain emergent circumstances, even the principles of natural justice may be diluted, if at all the same have been allegedly violated, as contended by the petitioners."

Court made a reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. J.N. Sinha and another (1971) where the Apex Court, while dealing with the issue of alleged violation of principles of natural justice in relation to statutory provisions, observed that "if on the other hand, a statutory provision either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of any or all the rules of the principles of natural justice then the court cannot ignore the mandate of the legislature or the statutory authority and read into the concerned provision the principles of natural justice".

Therefore, the single judge bench opined that if, in the present matter, at all, violation of principles of natural justice, had been committed while conducting investigation by the SIT, though a contrary stand had been taken by the state authorities, adherence/non-adherence of principles of natural justice could be understood in the light of implied exclusion of such provision to some extent under various subsections of Sections 13 and express inclusion under Section 10 (2) (vi) of the Act, 2004.

Court said that "neither the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education nor the State Government is powerless or functionless, in case, any illegality, irregularity, flaw, mischief, misrepresentation etc. comes to their knowledge by any means whatsoever, which may infer that either recognition was wrongfully granted to any Madarsa or, even if rightly granted, the conditions of recognition are being violated or it is not fit, either in the opinion of the Board or the State Government, that the recognition should continue for an indefinite period of time".

In the light of the aforesaid provisions, I find that if the State Government constituted a Special Investigation Team to carry out inspection, either through spot inspection, physical verification or even through Portal information uploaded by the Board, its action cannot be said to be unjustified, the single judge bench underscored. 

The first writ petition was filed by Anjuman Siddiquia Jamia Noorul Oloom Munshipur, Mubarakpur, Azamgarh through its Manager Mr. Zaheen Ahmad which had established Madarsa Ashrafia Madintul Banat, Mubarakpur, Azamgarh in 2011. The Madarsa was receiving financial assistance from the State Government.

As per the petitioners, the Madarsa was closed in 2017 due to financial crunch and the same had been intimidated to the state authorises.

The petitioners' grievance was that despite this, in 2022, based on a report filed by the SIT constituted by the State Government, various actions were proposed to be taken against them including lodging of FIR against the office bearers of the Madarsa under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

The petitioners argued that Madarsa authorities were never given a chance to participate in the SIT investigation or the decision-making processes of the Committee headed by Chief Secretary of the State Government.

The Second petitioner was filed by the Committee of Management of 13 Madarsas and prayers made therein were more or less identical to the prayers in the first petition. 

The stand taken by the State Government was that in the SIT's investigation, the petitioner Madarsas had been found non-existent, and therefore, actions had been taken against the management of those Madarsas.

The Additional Superintendent of Police, State S.I.T., U.P., Lucknow filed a counter affidavit stating that in 2020, an inquiry about 313 Madarsas was conducted and, having found various unwarranted activities and anomalies, a decision to get the investigation conducted through SIT was taken and the SIT found that out of the aforesaid 313 Madarsa, 72 Madarsas were not as per standards.

Hence a recommendation has been made to withdraw the recognition of these 72 Madarsas and to proceed with the departmental proceedings against the employee/officer, who has granted recognition, he stated. 

Moreover, as per the affidavit, out of 313 Madarsas, 219 Madarsas were found to be nonexistent as they were only running on paper.

The SIT found that these Madarsas, which had been shown to be run were only for the purpose of embezzling the Government Aid.

As per the SIT report, out of 313 Madarsas, which were under inquiry, only for 8 Madarsas recognition file records were made available only for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16.

Regarding the petitioner Madarsa in the first writ petition, the SIT report stated that the Madarsa had been found to be non existing and the file record relating to the recognition of Madarsa was also not made available by the District Minority Welfare Officer, Azamgarh.

Moreover, the officer submitted that the petitioners in the first writ petition participated in the enquiry proceedings but the Manager did not make available relevant records nor were details found uploaded during the course of the Portal examination also during spot inspection and overall situation revealed that the Madarsa was non-existent.

The officers further submitted that, therefore, in view of the SIT report, the decision to take criminal action against the erring persons had been taken.

Moreover, regarding alleged ex-parte proceedings, reliance had been placed by him upon the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act, 2004 as well as various powers conferred upon the State Government including power under Section 13 of the Act, 2004.

Taking submissions made by all the parties into account, the single judge bench opined that although the SIT report mentioned actions against 313 Madarsas, it would not be appropriate to nullify or suspend the entire report based on challenges from just one Madarsa.

This should not halt all proceedings entirely, including those involving the petitioners, said the bench. 

Therefore, while rejecting the petitioners' prayer to set aside the SIT report and consequent decision of the State Government, court also vacated the interim orders passed by a single judge bench whereby actions by the State Government against the petitioners had been stayed. 

Case Title: Anjuman Siddiquia Jamia Noorul Oloom And 4 Others V. State Of U.P. And 5 Others and Connected matters