The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) of India filed an affidavit on Wednesday before the Supreme Court of India in the ongoing case regarding the constitutionality of the “Madrasa” education system. The affidavit flagged concerns about the quality of education imparted at such institutes, specifically pointing out that their mode of operation is arbitrary and falls outside the purview of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE Act) of 2009.
According to the affidavit, Madrasas function in violation of the Constitutional mandate, the RTE Act, and the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, thereby depriving children of a structured curriculum provided in mainstream schooling. The submission highlights concerns that children attending these institutions lack essential knowledge covered by the mainstream education system mandated by Article 21A of the Constitution, which was inserted by the Eighty-Sixth Amendment in 2002.
The nature of Madrasa education, primarily focused on religious studies such as Arabic, Urdu, Persian, and Islamic studies, was also brought into question. The affidavit claims that these institutions lack universality and quality in the education they provide.
Earlier this year, the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed a judgment striking down the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004 (UPBME Act), labeling it unconstitutional for violating the principle of secularism. The Court noted that the education provided in Madrasas was neither “quality” nor “universal” in character. The Supreme Court, however, granted a stay order on this judgment in April and is now in the process of reviewing the case.
The NCPCR is a statutory body tasked with ensuring the protection and promotion of child rights across India, with a particular focus on providing access to quality primary education to children from disadvantaged backgrounds. This recent affidavit is part of its ongoing efforts to uphold these mandates.
You can find the full article on the JURIST website.