Introduction:

In the matter of Madarsa Moinul Islam Qasmiya Samiti and Another vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Minority Welfare Govt. Lko and 4 Others and its connected petitions, the Allahabad High Court, through a bench led by Justice Jaspreet Singh, provided substantial relief to 27 madrasas operating in Shravasti district, Uttar Pradesh, by staying their proposed demolition and restraining the state authorities from taking any coercive action against them. This interim order was granted in response to a series of writ petitions filed by the aggrieved madrasas, which were reportedly facing abrupt actions from local authorities following notices issued that not only questioned their functioning but also ordered them to cease imparting religious education. The Court took cognisance of serious procedural lapses, including the non-service of notices, the absence of any opportunity for a hearing, and the use of a template format with the same reference number across all notices, which raised a legitimate apprehension of premeditated state action. Observing that any state action that leads to civil consequences must be preceded by due process, the Court emphasised the fundamental right to be heard and noted that the legal framework governing madrasas was not even invoked in most of the notices. On this basis, the Court found sufficient merit in the petitioners’ plea to intervene and issued a protective interim order.

Arguments by the Petitioners:

The petitioners, represented by Advocates Nipendra Singh, Aviral Raj Singh, Ali Moid, and Mohd. Yasir, strongly objected to the state action which, according to them, threatened the existence of their educational institutions without due process. It was contended that the madrasas had not received any prior notice or opportunity to present their side before the state moved to seal their premises or ordered demolition. The petitioners argued that the notices dated May 1, 2025, appeared to have been mechanically issued, bearing identical reference numbers and language across all 27 institutions, indicating a lack of individual assessment or application of mind. They submitted that this pattern suggested a premeditated administrative decision targeting religious educational institutions under the pretext of regulatory enforcement. The advocates highlighted that none of the notices cited the applicable law or regulatory provisions governing madrasas, especially the Uttar Pradesh Non-Governmental Arabic and Persian Madarsa Recognition, Administration and Services Regulations, 2016, which is the relevant statute. The petitioners argued that the omission to mention these regulations rendered the notices legally unsustainable and vague. Furthermore, they asserted that when any action threatens civil consequences—such as loss of property, education, livelihood, or institutional existence—the principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem (right to be heard), must be strictly followed. The petitioners also stated that the coercive actions—sealing and threats of demolition—were already carried out or initiated even before the madrasas could respond to the notices, making the proceedings ex parte and void in the eyes of law. The petitioners requested urgent interim relief, pointing to the pressing danger of demolition and violation of fundamental rights, including the right to education and religious freedom under Articles 25 and 30 of the Constitution of India.

Arguments by the Respondents:

On behalf of the State, Standing Counsel Upendra Singh argued that the notices issued to the madrasas were lawful and in accordance with the state’s duty to regulate educational institutions. He submitted that these institutions were allegedly functioning without appropriate recognition or had deviated from the permitted curriculum by focusing solely on religious instruction to the exclusion of secular subjects. The State claimed it was exercising its supervisory authority to ensure that recognised institutions operate within the framework of applicable rules and fulfil their obligations to provide a balanced curriculum in line with educational norms. When questioned about the legal basis for such recognition, the Standing Counsel referred to the Uttar Pradesh Non-Governmental Arabic and Persian Madarsa Recognition, Administration and Services Regulations, 2016, as the governing statute. However, during the proceedings on June 5, the State failed to produce any records to establish the service of notices or to show compliance with the procedures outlined under the 2016 Regulations. Instead, it sought two additional weeks to file the necessary documents. The Court noted this lack of readiness unfavorably and observed that no plausible justification had been offered for proceeding without properly serving the notices. While the State tried to assert that the notices provided adequate cause for the institutions to respond, it was unable to explain the identical language, lack of regulation-specific citations, and simultaneous sealing actions, all of which cast doubt on the procedural fairness of the State’s approach.

Court’s Judgment and Reasoning:

The Allahabad High Court, after a thorough preliminary review of the facts and contentions, sided with the petitioners on multiple critical grounds. The Court found prima facie merit in the argument that the notices were issued without due application of mind. Justice Jaspreet Singh noted with concern that all the impugned notices bore the same reference number, a fact which in itself indicated that the administrative process lacked individual assessment or scrutiny. The Court found this practice contrary to the very essence of administrative fairness, especially when it pertains to issues that can result in grave civil consequences. The High Court reminded the State that in matters where demolition or closure of institutions is involved, adherence to principles of natural justice is not optional but mandatory. The Court reiterated that a valid show-cause notice must clearly state the grounds of action, specify the applicable legal provision, and give a reasonable opportunity to the noticee to respond. In the instant case, most of the notices failed to even mention the 2016 Regulations, and the uniformity in language raised serious doubts regarding independent decision-making.

Furthermore, the Court expressed concern that in some instances, the madrasas were sealed even before any response could be filed, effectively nullifying the purpose of a notice. This, according to the Court, suggested a pre-decided course of action rather than an open and fair administrative process. Justice Singh stressed that even in regulatory enforcement, the state must act transparently, respecting constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21. The Court also questioned the validity of coercive steps being taken while the legal compliance of the notices themselves was under challenge, especially in the absence of conclusive evidence that the notices had been properly served. Since the State failed to submit proof of service even after being granted time on June 4 and instead sought another two weeks, the Court concluded that the situation demanded judicial intervention.

In light of the above findings, the Court granted interim relief by staying the demolition of the madrasas and restraining any further coercive actions. It directed the State to file its counter-affidavit within two weeks to respond to the petitioners’ allegations. The order acknowledged that while the State has the power to enforce rules and maintain educational standards, such power must be exercised within the confines of procedural fairness and constitutional protections. Importantly, the Court underscored the necessity for administrative accountability and warned against arbitrary actions that impact institutions serving community-specific educational needs. Thus, the Court’s interim order reaffirmed the judicial commitment to ensuring that executive powers are balanced by procedural safeguards and the rule of law.