Order Taking Cognizance Must Reflect Application Of Mind; Section 197 CrPC Sanction Mandatory For Prosecuting Public Servants: Karnataka High Court Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Partially Against Specific Defendants Or Properties; Limitation Is A Triable Issue: Telangana High Court Employee Having National Trade Certificate & Prior Experience To Be Treated As 'Highly Skilled' For Compensation: Orissa High Court Insurance Company Entitled To Subpoena Investigating Officer For Vehicle Records When Insured Is Untraceable: Madras High Court Seller's Fraudulent Conduct & Non-Disclosure Of Mortgage Justify Refund Of Advance Sale Consideration: Kerala High Court Complaint Under Section 138 NI Act Filed By Partner On Behalf Of Firm Maintainable Even Without Specific Authorization Letter: Gujarat High Court Extension Of Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act Requires Public Prosecutor's Independent Report, Not Just IO's Request: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orissa Grama Panchayats Act | No Bar On Rescheduling No-Confidence Motion Meeting Before Its Commencement: High Court Non-Preparation Of ‘Nil’ Seizure List After Searching Raiding Officer Not Fatal To NDPS Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Registration Of Trademark Confers Exclusive Right To Sue For Infringement Irrespective Of Whether Mark Is In Use: Delhi High Court Presence Of Magistrate Not Mandatory For Recording Dying Declaration; Conviction Can Be Based On DD Recorded By Police: Bombay High Court Routine Bank Transfers Between Spouses For Daily Needs Are Gratuitous Payments, Not Recoverable As Entrusted Funds: Kerala High Court Clerical Lapses Under Work Pressure Amount To Dereliction Of Duty, Not Crime: Madras High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Deputy BDO Burden Of Proving Sale Deed Is Bona Fide Lies On Beneficiary If Executant Is Illiterate Or Vulnerable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Take Advantage Of Own Delay; Employer Not Required To Preserve Disciplinary Records For Eternity: Bombay High Court Deadline To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Trade Marks Rules Is Directory, Registrar Can Extend Time Under Section 131: Bombay High Court Exclusion Of Interest In Insurance Policy Is Conditional; Insurer Must Plead & Prove Employer's Failure To Comply With Act To Avoid Liability: Kerala High Court Practicing Lawyer Entitled To Interim Maintenance From Husband If Income Is Insufficient To Maintain Standard Of Living: Orissa High Court Section 138 NI Act Offences Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Revision Or Appeal: Madras High Court Unsuccessful Party Seeking Post-Award Interim Relief Under Section 9 Faces 'Higher Threshold', Must Show Rare & Compelling Circumstances: Bombay High Court

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