The Supreme Court sought the Assam government’s answer on Tuesday in an appeal against a Gauhati High Court decision maintaining the Assam Repealing Act of 2020.
A Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar issued notice in the petition challenging the judgement, which effectively converted existing provincialized madrasas (Islamic schools) in the state of Assam into normal government institutions.
The Assam Madrassa Education Provincialisation Act, 1995, and the Assam Madrassa Education (Provincialisation of Employee Services and Reorganisation of Madrassa Educational Institutions) Act, 2018, were both repealed by the Act. On February 4, this year, the High Court disregarded the petitioners’ allegation that government-funded madrasas are minority institutions established and governed by the minority group. The High Court observed that because the whole teaching and non-teaching personnel of these educational institutions are government employees, state madrasas cannot be claimed to be formed or administered by minority institutions. The decision was written by then Chief Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, who has subsequently been promoted to the Supreme Court.
The petition stated that the High Court erroneously observed that madrasas, as government schools entirely supported by the State through provincialization, are covered by Article 28(1) of the Constitution and hence cannot be allowed to give religious instruction.
The petitioners argued before the High Court that the Act’s conversion of minority institutions to government institutions violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21, 25, 26, 29, and 30 of the Constitution.
According to the appeal, the Assam Madrassa Education (Provincialization) Act, 1995, which was repealed by the 2020 Act, is only limited to the State undertaking to pay salaries and provide consequential benefits to teaching and non-teaching staff employed in madrasas, as well as the administration, management and control of these madrasas.
According to the submission, the repealing Act will take away the madrasas’ property as well as their right to impart religious instruction.
It is further argued that the High Court’s decision would result in the petitioner institutions losing their status as madrasas and preventing them from admitting students to the previous courses for the current academic year.
CASE: Md Imad Uddin Barbhuiya v. State of Assam and ors