State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication

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