NCPCR Tells Allahabad High Court That Education Imparted In Madrasas Is Inadequate, Against Mandate Of RTE Act
While agreeing to the submission that the State is the guardian of all and as per the doctrine of “parens patriae” is liable under a duty to provide education through the mandate of Article 51(k) of the Constitution, the Allahabad High Court allowed the intervention application filed by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) in a case involving the question as to whether State can fund Madrasas imparting religious education.
Referring to the contentions of the NCPCR that the act of getting education in a state-funded Madrasa instead of getting enrolled in a proper school obstructs the Constitutional mandate, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that the matter is of wide ramification and importance and that outcome of this case will affect the education system as well as the rights of the children studying in Madarsas.
Advocate Adil Hussain appeared for the Petitioner, whereas, ASGI Rakesh Tewari and Advocates Rakshit Raj Singh and Swarupama Chaturvedi appeared for the Respondent.
The High Court had previously asked the Central and State Governments to file their affidavits explaining how using Government funding, religious education can be imparted in Madrasas and whether this could be in violation of Articles 14, 25, 26, 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India.
Emphasizing on the principle of universality and inviolability of child rights, the NCPCR highlighted in its intervention application that it has been bestowed with various important functions as per the scheme of Section 13 and Section 15 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights (CPCR) Act, 2005, which imposes a duty upon NCPCR to take many important actions for ensuring child welfare.
The NCPCR further submitted that the rights of children studying in Madrasas and issues related therein are very prominent issues in the current context, which requires keen consideration by this Court, as education imparted to children in Madrasas is not adequate or comprehensive and as such the same is against the provisions of Right to Education Act, 2009.
"..education imparted to children in Madrasas is not adequate/ comprehensive and as such the same is against the provisions of Right to Education Act, 2009", the NCPCR has contented in its intervention application.
The NCPCR went on to submit that the denial of the benefit of right to education to children by these institutions with minority status not only deprives the children of their fundamental right to attain literacy and education, but also snowballs into depriving the child of their fundamental right to Equality before law, as children in other schools get their rights ensured.
Highlighting prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, the NCPCR submitted that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation, and moral and material abandonment of Article 39(f) and also interrupts with the State’s responsibility under Article 13 to not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred under the fundamental rights and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.
Accordingly, the Applicant submitted that the RTE Act, instead of an enabling tool, becomes a depriving tool for the children studying in minority institutions, as these institutes are also providing Islamic religious education to non-Muslims, which is further in violation of Article 28 (3) of the Constitution of India.
Elucidating that the Constitution of India makes it an obligation of the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children without any discrimination or prejudice and to ensure that children go to neighbourhood schools for availing formal education as per Section 6 of the RTE Act, 2009, the NCPCR has said that it has been observed via numerous complaints that Madrasas work in an arbitrary manner and run in an overall violation of the Constitutional mandate, the RTE Act, 2009, and the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
The NCPCR has said that a child getting education in such an institution will be devoid of basic knowledge of school curriculum and that the State cannot facilitate such activity beyond the RTE Act, which is in violation of Article 21A of the Constitution of India, as Madrasas being out of this definition have no right to compel children or their families to receive Madrasa education.
The National Commission further canvassed that a Madrasa is not only an unsuitable/unfit place to receive ‘fundamental’ education but also in the absence of benefits to children as provided under Sections 19, 21,22, 23, 24, 25, and 29 of the RTE Act, 2009, and the Madrasas render an unsatisfactory and insufficient model for education and have an arbitrary mode of working in the absence of curriculum and evaluation procedure laid down under Section 29 of the Right to Education Act, 2009.
The High Court, after hearing the matter at length, has appointed Advocate S.M. Singh Raikwar as an Amicus Curiae in the matter and has listed this matter on May 30, 2023.
Cause Title: Ajaz Ahamad v. Union of India Ministry of Affairs Thru. Secretary and Others
Click here to read / download Order
