Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

Supreme Court Halts Enforcement of NCPCR's Directives on Madrassas, Citing Violation of Minority Rights

21 October 2024 8:36 PM

By: sayum


Today, on 21 Oct. 24, Supreme Court granted Interim relief to Jamiat Ulema-I-Hind as SC stops Union and States from withdrawing Madrassa recognition over RTE compliance. Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, restrained the Union Government and States from enforcing NCPCR’s orders to withdraw recognition of non-compliant Madrassas and inspect them for adherence to the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009. The interim order came in response to a writ petition filed by Jamiat Ulema-I-Hind, challenging the constitutional validity of the directives issued in June 2024. The petition argues that the actions violate the religious minorities' rights under Article 30 of the Constitution.

The bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, passed the order while hearing a writ petition filed by Jamiat Ulema-I-Hind, an Islamic clerics' organization, challenging NCPCR's actions.

In June 2024, the NCPCR issued a series of letters to the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh and the Ministry of Education, urging them to withdraw recognition from Madrassas not adhering to RTE standards and to conduct inspections. The NCPCR further recommended that a separate category be created to track all Madrassas—recognized, unrecognized, and unmapped—through the UDISE system, with instructions not to extend the UDISE system to Madrassas.

In response, the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary and the Government of Tripura followed up with instructions to investigate Madrassas admitting non-Muslim children and ensure their transfer to regular schools.

The petitioner contended that these directives violated the constitutional rights of religious minorities under Article 30, which guarantees the right to establish and administer educational institutions.

The Supreme Court, in its order, restrained any further action based on the NCPCR's communications dated June 7 and June 25, as well as subsequent orders issued by Uttar Pradesh, the Union Government, and the Government of Tripura.

The petitioner was represented by AoR Fuzail Ahmed Ayyubi, and the court granted permission to implead all States and Union Territories in the ongoing petition.

JAMIAT ULEMA I HIND v. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS AND ORS.

Order will upload soon

Latest Legal News