In the matter of Azaj Ahamad v UOI, a request was made by Azaj Ahamad, a teacher at a Madrasa in Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, who was seeking assistance with a payment problem. The NCPCR claims that the education provided to children in madrasas is insufficient and incomplete in their intervention petition. It asserted that there have been numerous accusations that Madrasas operate “arbitrarily” and in violation of the Juvenile Justice Act and the Right to Education Act of 2009 (RTE Act). The Commission also stated that the current situation demanded careful analysis, which is why it requested authorization to support the court. Before this, the Court had stated that it was undisputed that religious instruction is provided at Madrasas in addition to the regular curriculum. To get responses, it has given the Union and State governments six weeks to respond
How can religious education be delivered on a government dime or with money from government coffers?
whether this might be against Articles 14, 25, 26, 29 and 30 of the Indian Constitution.
Analysis of Court Decision
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh of the Allahabad High Court’s single bench permitted the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) to participate in a dispute involving whether religious instruction can be provided in Madrasas supported by the government. Additionally, the single bench named attorney SM Singh Raikwar as an amicus curiae to help the court with the case.
The single bench acknowledged that the issue has broad implications and some significance and that the decision, in this case, would have an impact on both the educational system and the rights of children attending madrasas.