THE SUPREME COURT YESTERDAY asked Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind to approach the concerned High Courts to challenge the June 7 and June 25, 2024 communications issued by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), which directed that students studying in unrecognised madrasas be shifted to government schools.
A bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh observed that High Courts are constitutional courts, and told the petitioner, Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, to “have faith in the High Court”,
While declining to hear the matter on merits at this stage, the Court extended the interim protection it had granted on October 21, 2024, staying the operation of NCPCR’s communications. The earlier order had also restrained states, including Uttar Pradesh and Tripura, from taking any consequential action based on the communications.
Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind has challenged the actions of the Uttar Pradesh and Tripura governments taken in pursuance of the NCPCR advisory, contending that such measures violate minority rights under the Constitution, as well as the fundamental right to education.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had already passed interim orders in the matter and urged the Court to hear the case fully. However, the bench reiterated that the petitioner was free to approach the respective High Courts.
By its interim order dated October 21, 2024, a bench of then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (since retired), and Justices J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra had stayed the NCPCR’s June 7 and June 25 communications and directed that any resulting action by the Centre or States not be acted upon.
Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind has argued that the NCPCR’s directive lacks legal authority, goes beyond the mandate of the Right to Education Act, 2009, and infringes on constitutionally guaranteed rights—namely, the right to education, religious freedom, and minority rights guaranteed under of the Constitution.
The matter will be taken up again after three weeks.
Disclosure: The petitioner in the case is represented by one of the founders of The Leaflet.