| ASPECTS | DETAILS |
| Case Title | SLP challenging Allahabad HC’s verdict on ‘UP Madarsa Act’ |
| Introduction | An SLP has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High Court’s verdict declaring the ‘UP Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004’ unconstitutional. |
| Factual Background | The Allahabad High Court, in its March 22, 2023, order, declared the ‘UP Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004’ unconstitutional, stating that a Secular State cannot create a Board for religious education or establish a Board for school education only for a particular religion and its philosophy. |
| Legal Issues | 1. Whether the ‘UP Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004’ is violative of the principles of secularism. 2. Whether the Act infringes upon Articles 21 and 21A of the Constitution of India. |
| Applicable Law | Constitution of India, particularly Articles 21 and 21A. |
| Analysis | The High Court held that the State cannot provide education of a particular religion, its instructions, prescriptions, and philosophies, or create separate education systems for separate religions. Such actions would violate the principles of secularism, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India. The Court found the 2004 Act to be unconstitutional and violative of Articles 21 and 21A. |
| Conclusion | The Allahabad High Court’s verdict declared the ‘UP Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004’ unconstitutional for violating the principles of secularism and the Constitution of India. |
| Current Scenario | The matter is now pending before the Supreme Court, where a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed challenging the Allahabad High Court’s verdict. |
CASE SUMMARY
A Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High Court’s verdict declaring the ‘UP Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004’ unconstitutional. The High Court held that a Secular State cannot create a Board for religious education or establish a Board for school education only for a particular religion and its philosophy. The Court found the Act violative of the principles of secularism and the Constitution of India, specifically Articles 21 and 21A. The SLP argues that the High Court’s decision was erroneous and arbitrary, and did not consider the positive assistance of the Bar.
SOURCE- REPUBLIC WORLD
READ MORE– AJAY KUMAR YADAV vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
