’Verdict may not be correct’: Supreme Court stays Allahabad HC judgment on UP Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004

The Supreme Court on 5 April issued a stay on Allahabad High Court's judgment striking down 'UP Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004' as unconstitutional. The top court said that the findings of the High Court that the establishment of a Madarsa board breaches the principles of secularism may not be correct and has issued notice on appeals challenging the High Court March 22 order.

Also Read: Nyay Patra: ‘ ₹1 lakh per year, 50% govt job quota’, Congress' key promises for women ahead of Lok Sabha polls

Earlier on 22 March, Allahabad high court's Lucknow bench had declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 as ‘unconstitutional.’ The bench had also directed the Yogi Adityanath-led Uttar Pradesh government to accommodate students studying in Madarsas in other schools.

Also Read: PM Modi sounds Lok Sabha election bugle from Uttar Pradesh's Meerut: 'June 4 ko 400 paar' | 10 points

A division bench comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Subhash Vidyarthi passed the verdict on a writ petition filed by a person named Anshuman Singh Rathore. As per the write petition, Rathore had challenged the constitutionality of the UP Madarsa Board as well as objected to the management of madarsa by the Minority Welfare Department, both by the Union of India and the state government.

Also read: Lok Sabha Elections 2024: Meet India's serial poll ‘losers’ who contested against AB Vajpayee, Hema Malini, Jayalalitha

After the Allahabad HC striked down the Act, UP Madrassa board chairman Dr Iftikhar Ahmed Javed said that the verdict would be analysed, news agency ANI reproted. "According to the High Court, the UP Madrassa Act that was introduced in 2004 has issues and is unconstitutional. We are trying to understand the verdict and will decide how to work in the coming days," Javed said as quoted by ANI. He had further added that the law was followed for 20 years, and if there were any issues, the government could decide how to solve them. "The act can be modified or a new act can be introduced. We will analyse this and make a decision. We respect the court's decision," he had said.

(With inputs from ANI)