MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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