EXAMINING NCPCR’S ALLEGED BIAS AGAINST RELIGIOUS EDUCATION SYSTEM

KEYWORDS: – Madarsas, Religious Education, Right to Education Act, Secularism, NCPCR, Fundamental rights, Discriminations.

ABSTRACT      

India’s education system is structured to reflect its diverse social and religious environment. Nonetheless, recent directives from the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) concerning madrasas and their students have sparked considerable legal and constitutional debate regarding minority rights. The situation escalated when the Supreme Court, in a pivotal ruling, put a hold on these directives, which aimed to transfer madrasa students to formal government schools.

This legal dispute has reignited conversations about secularism, the independence of religious educational institutions, and the role of the State in facilitating access to modern education for all children.This article explores the legal aspects of the conflict between the NCPCR’s directives and minority rights, focusing on constitutional secularism, the Right to Education Act, and relevant judicial precedents that impact religious education in India. It also discusses the implications of the Supreme Court’s stay order and its potential consequences for the future of madrasa education in the country.

1. NCPCR Directives and Supreme Court Intervention

In 2024, the NCPCR ¹communicated with state governments, such as those of Uttar Pradesh and Tripura, proposing the transfer of students from madrasas to formal government schools. The Commission argued that madrasa education, which emphasizes religious teachings, is depriving students of modern education and violating their fundamental right to education as outlined in the Right to Education Act, 2009.

This stance encountered immediate pushback from Islamic organizations, particularly the Jamiat Ulema-i- Hind², which filed a petition contesting the legality of these directives. The organization claimed that such a transfer challenges the religious autonomy of madrasas and infringes on their rights as minority institutions per Article 30 of the Indian Constitution. They asserted that the NCPCR’s actions were not only unconstitutional but also discriminatory, misrepresenting the role of madrasas in their communities.

¹ National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, ‘Directives to State Governments Regarding Madrasa Education’ (2024)

² Supreme Court of India, Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind v. Union of India (2024)

On October 22, 2024, Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud led the Supreme Court in staying these directives, highlighting the necessity for a thorough examination of the NCPCR’s orders. The court recognized the State’s “vital interest” in ensuring broad-based education for children while also maintaining respect for the rights of religious and linguistic minorities to manage their own educational institutions, as guaranteed by Article 30³. The ruling temporarily paused the directives, facilitating a more detailed legal review of the matter.

2. Secularism and Its Constitutional Mandate in Religious Education

The Indian Constitution establishes a secular framework designed to provide freedom of religion and protect minority rights. Article 28⁴ delineates a clear distinction between “religious instruction” and “religious education.” While religious instruction is not permitted in state-funded institutions, the educational study of religion—encompassing a broader examination of various beliefs and practices—is allowed. This distinction forms the foundation of the debate surrounding the NCPCR’s directives.

Madrasas, as religious educational entities, have historically offered both religious instruction and general education. The NCPCR’s claim of an excessive emphasis on religious content in madrasa curricula, potentially neglecting essential academic subjects needed for competing in contemporary society, poses a fundamental question: Does the State’s commitment to providing modern education to all children supersede the constitutional rights of minorities to operate and manage their educational institutions?

The Supreme Court’s engagement illustrates the delicate equilibrium between these opposing interests. On one side, the State has the obligation to ensure that all children receive a comprehensive education equipped for future opportunities. On the other side, minorities hold the fundamental right to uphold their religious and linguistic traditions through education.

The principles of secularism, as articulated by the Supreme Court, necessitate a thoughtful exploration of religion’s role in education and determine the extent of State intervention in religious institutions. The court’s acknowledgment of the significance of madrasas in preserving cultural identity supports the need for a nuanced educational strategy that honors religious diversity while also fostering modern academic standards.

3. Adherence to the Right to Education Act, 2009

³ D Y Chandrachud, ‘Supreme Court Stay on NCPCR Directives’ (2024) Krishnadas Rajagopal, The Hindu, New Delhi, Oct.22, 2024

⁴ Freedom of Religion, Art. 28, Constitution of India

The Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009⁵, mandates free and compulsory education for all children aged 6 to 14. The NCPCR contended that madrasa education, constrained primarily by religious instruction, did not conform to RTE standards. Madrasa representatives, however, disputed this view, asserting they align with state-recommended curricula alongside religious studies.

They argue their institutions provide a comprehensive educational experience that includes both religious and secular subjects. Numerous madrasas have adopted subjects like mathematics, science, and language studies into their curricula, thereby adhering to RTE requirements. Nevertheless, the concerns raised by the NCPCR regarding madrasa education’s adequacy and its implications for students’ future opportunities remain significant.

The Allahabad High Court’s March 2024 ruling⁶, which declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, unconstitutional, complicated the landscape further. The court determined the Act violated the principle of secularism by permitting state financing for religious education, sparking dialogue about the legality of state support for religious institutions and the potential infringement upon secular ideals.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court’s stay on this ruling and its decision to suspend the NCPCR’s directives highlight the ongoing legal tension between secularism and religious autonomy in education. The court’s intervention signals a recognition of the necessity for a balanced approach that protects the rights of minorities while obligating the State to ensure quality education for all children.

4. Judicial Precedents Influencing Religious Educational Institutions

Several landmark judicial decisions have shaped the legal framework around religious educational institutions. In the 2002 case of Aruna Roy vs. Union of India⁷, the Supreme Court differentiated between religious instruction and the study of religion, declaring that while the former is banned in state-funded entities, the latter is permissible. This ruling has crucial implications for madrasas, which navigate the line between religious instruction and broader religious studies.

Similarly, in the 2014 case of Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs. Union of India⁸, the Supreme Court affirmed minority institutions’ rights to manage their educational operations without undue State

⁵ Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009

⁶ Anshuman Singh Rathor Vs Union of India secy. Ministry of Edu. New Delhi and 3 others Writ-C 6049/2023

⁷ Aruna Roy v. Union of India (2002) 1 SCC 718.

⁸ Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 1.

interference. This judgment reinforced the protections afforded to minority institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution, emphasizing that any State regulation of these institutions must be measured against the fundamental rights of minorities.

The Supreme Court’s stay on the NCPCR’s directives draws on these judicial precedents, which highlight the necessity of preserving the autonomy of religious educational institutions while ensuring students receive a well-rounded education. These rulings underscore that the rights of minority educational institutions are essential components of India’s dedication to secularism and inclusivity.

These precedents are critical, providing a legal framework that the NCPCR must navigate. The court’s judgments reflect an understanding that while the State has a legitimate role in assuring education quality, it must simultaneously respect minorities’ rights to establish and govern their institutions.

5. The NCPCR’s Role and Minority Rights

The NCPCR is responsible for protecting children’s rights, including their right to education. The directives aimed at transferring madrasa students to government schools were positioned by the NCPCR as necessary for ensuring these students receive a modern education. However, minority groups have criticized this action as an overreach, claiming the NCPCR attempted to regulate religious institutions without proper legal authority.

The legal challenge posed by the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind asserted that the NCPCR’s directives infringed upon the fundamental rights of minorities to establish and manage their educational institutions, as provisions in Article 30 of the Constitution ensure. Petitioners argued that the NCPCR unjustly targeted madrasa students, treating them as “chattel” and accused the commission of engaging in a politically motivated assertion of power.

The NCPCR’s tactics raise essential questions about the function of regulatory agencies in education. Although the commission has a credible interest in ensuring quality education for all children, its methods must be consistent with constitutional principles and respect the rights of minority communities. The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the enforcement of NCPCR’s directives underscores the broader legal and constitutional matters involved and indicates the need for regulatory bodies to engage with minority perspectives while crafting policies impacting their institutions.

6. Consequences of the Supreme Court’s Stay Order

The Supreme Court’s decision to suspend the NCPCR’s directives brings substantial implications for the future of madrasa education in India. By preventing the transfer of madrasa students to government

schools, the court has temporarily relieved minority institutions from interference, allowing them to manage their educational affairs. However, the underlying issue of ensuring that madrasa students are equipped with modern, comprehensive education remains unresolved.

The court’s emphasis on the State’s “vital interest” in providing a well-rounded education to all students suggests a need for a careful balancing of interests. While religious education plays a vital role in preserving cultural identity, it must be complemented with academic curricula that enables all children to thrive in contemporary society.

In short, the ongoing legal conflict between the NCPCR’s directives and the rights of minority educational institutions highlights the complexity of balancing state interests with constitutional protections. The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores the necessity for an approach that values religious diversity while promoting educational standards that prepare all children for future challenges.