Vague Allegations Of Infidelity And Harassment Without Cogent Evidence Do Not Amount To Cruelty For Divorce: Telangana High Court Supreme Court Introduces 'Periodic Review' Mechanism For Monitoring Contumacious Advocates Supreme Court Suspends Criminal Contempt Conviction Of Yatin Oza; Invokes Article 142 To Grant 'Final Act Of Forgiveness' With Periodic Conduct Review Court Must Adopt Parental Temperament While Disciplining Bar Members; SC Suspends Yatin Oza’s Contempt Conviction As ‘Final Act Of Forgiveness’ Conviction Can Be Based On Testimony Of Solitary Witness Of Sterling Quality; Indian Law Values Quality Over Quantity Of Evidence: Supreme Court Authorities Can't Turn A Blind Eye To Illegal Constructions; Must Follow Due Process For Demolition: Telangana High Court Section 506 IPC Charges Liable To Be Quashed If Threat Lacks 'Intent To Cause Alarm' To Complainant: Supreme Court SC/ST Act Offences Not Made Out If Alleged Abuse Occurs Inside Private Residence Without Public Presence: Supreme Court Election Tribunal Becomes Functus Officio After Passing Final Order; Cannot Later Declare New Result Based On Recount: Supreme Court Remarriage Contracted Immediately After Divorce Decree Before Expiry Of Limitation Period Has No Validity In Law: Telangana High Court Lack Of Notice For Spot Inspection Under Stamp Act Is An Irregularity, Not Illegality If No Prejudice Caused: Allahabad High Court Mutation Entry In Revenue Records Does Not Create Or Extinguish Title; Succession To Agricultural Land Governed Strictly By Statute: Delhi High Court Children Shouldn't Be Deprived Of Parental Affection Due To Matrimonial Disputes; Courts Must Ensure Child Isn't Tutored: Andhra Pradesh High Court 138 NI Act | Wife Of Sole Proprietor Not Vicariously Liable For Dishonoured Cheque She Didn't Sign: Calcutta High Court Quashes Proceedings State Cannot Profit From Its Own Delay In Deciding Land Tenure Conversion Applications: Gujarat High Court Owner Of Establishment Cannot Evade Liability Under Employees’ Compensation Act By Shifting Responsibility To Manager: Bombay High Court Developer Assigning Only Leasehold Rights Via Sub-Lease Not A 'Promoter', Project Doesn't Require RERA Registration: Allahabad High Court Court Cannot Be Oblivious To Juveniles Used By Organized Syndicates To Commit Heinous Crimes: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To CCL Conviction For Assaulting Public Servant Sustainable Based On Victim's Testimony & Medical Evidence Even If Eye-Witnesses Turn Hostile: 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