SC issues notice of impeachment against Act converting state-funded madrasas into public schools | Media Pyro

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a notice of appeal against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court, which upheld the validity of the Madrassa Education Act, 1995 (repealed by the 2020 Act) and all subsequent government orders, which vide notification dated February 12, 2021.

A bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar sought a reply from the Assam government and others.

This application submitted by lawyer Adeel Ahmed, argued that the Supreme Court wrongly observed that the petitioner’s madrasas are public schools, and that they are managed by the government through regional states as stated in Article 28 (1) of the constitution. India, therefore, has no power. allowed to give religious instructions.

The appeal challenges the enforcement decision that converted existing state madrasas in Assam into regular government schools.

Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, representing the petitioners, said before the session that the Supreme Court’s decision was wrong as it equated regionalization with nationalization.

The petition added that the Assam Madrassa Education (State) Act, 1995 (repealed by the 2020 Act) is limited only to payment of salaries and provision of reasonable benefits to teaching and non-teaching staff working in madrasas and also other administration, management and control of these madrasas.

Hedge informed the bench that the property of the madrasa had been confiscated.

“The land and buildings owned by the madrasa are in the hands of the applicants, the costs of electricity and housing materials belong to the applicant madrasa.”

The Repeal Act 2020 takes possession along with the legal recognition of Madrasa education and the repealed order dated 12.02.2021 issued by the Governor dissolves the ‘Assam State Board of Madrasas’ constituted in 1954,” it said. said the request.

The petition added that it constituted an arbitrary exercise of both legislative and executive powers and meant denying the petitioner’s madrasas to continue as madrasas offering religious education. along with religious education.

The petition was submitted that the violation of the property rights of the petitioner’s madrasas without providing adequate compensation is a direct violation of Article 30 (1A) of the Constitution of India.

This case, which happened in the Supreme Court, was submitted by Md. Imad Uddin Barbhuiya and 12 other residents of Assam demanded a stay of the Supreme Court as a temporary relief.

“The operation of the stolen judgment results in the termination of the petitioner’s status as a madrasa, and prevents students from attending the previous courses of this school year,” said the petition against the Supreme Court’s ruling in February this year. .