The Allahabad High Court has directed the Registry to register a PIL pertaining to funding of religious education institutions as Madarsas through State funds, as a separate case since the matter involves a larger public interest. The bench further directed it to be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate direction or before the appropriate PIL Bench.

“…If any issue which has wide ramification concerning the education system as also the rights of children being imparted education and such institutions, there cannot be any quarrel that such issue does involve larger public interest and in this appropriate case if cognizance of such issue apart from the issues concerning the Writ Petitioner, has been taken up by the learned Single Judge, no one can have any objection to the same”, a division bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed in the matter.

“We completely agree with the order passed by the learned Single Judge where he has expressed his opinion that the matter at hand requires consideration not only from the point of view of the prayers made by the writ petitioner but also from the point of view as to whether the funding by the State Exchequer of the institutions imparting religious instructions is violative of Articles 14, 25, 26, 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India”, the bench further observed.

Senior Advocate V. K. Singh appeared for the appellant, Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi appeared for NCPCR, Advocate R. C. Tiwari appeared for the Union of India.

While referring to State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Neeraj Chaubey and others, (2010) 10 SCC 320, the bench also noted that if a Bench in a petition concludes that it involves a matter of larger public interest, then it may not entertain it as a Public Interest Litigation but has the option to convert it into a public interest litigation, and ask the Registry to place it before a Bench which has jurisdiction to entertain the PIL as per Rules.

In the matter, the National Commission For Protection Of Child Rights (NCPCR) had sought an intervention on account of the fact that certain anomalies and discrepancies relating to the rights of the children in Madarsas were noticed.

The bench earlier had allowed the intervention plea of the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) seeking permission of the court to address the issue.

In the case, a plea was filed by a Madarsa teacher named Azaj Ahamad which was in relation to his payment of salary. The petitioner was teaching in Madarsa Samdaniya Islamia, Shudnipur, Jaunpur District.

It is pertinent to note that a bench of Justice DK Singh had earlier directed the central and Uttar Pradesh governments to file their responses on a plea related to funding of religious education institutions.

"The matter is of wide ramification and some importance, and the outcome of this case will effect the education system as well as the rights of children studying in madrassas", the bench had said.

The Court in view of the above asserted, “It is not in dispute that in Madarsa besides normal curriculum, the religious education is also imparted.”

In its March 27, 2023 order also, the High Court had expressed concern on the issue and sought the responses of the state and Centre. The bench had then directed,

“In the meantime, if the petitioner has been teaching in Madarsa Samdaniya Islamia, Shudnipur, District-Jaunpur and the said Madarsa has received funds from the Government(s), the petitioner should be paid salary as per his appointment letter dated April 6, 2016”.
The division bench further observed that "We have no doubt in our mind, whatsoever, that there is a clear intent in the proceedings of the writ petition that apart from the issue relating to the writ petitioner claiming payment of salary the issue of larger public interest has also to be considered and agitated".
Accordingly, while referring to Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Sonu vs. State of U.P. & Ors., Writ Petition No. 2599 (MB) of 2014, the Court disposed of the special appeal.
Cause Title- Azaj Ahamad v. U.O.I. Ministry of Affairs Thru. Secy. and 4 Others [Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC-LKO:38462-DB]