Our country a melting pot of cultures, religions; let us preserve that: Supreme Court in Madrasa case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday described India as a "melting pot of cultures, civilisations and religions", while stressing on taking steps to preserve it [Anjum Kadari and anr vs Union of India and ors]..A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra made the remark while hearing appeals challenging Allahabad High Court decision to strike down Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004.The Court said that such religious instructions are not unique to Muslim community and other religions have the same too. The objective of the Act is to bring Muslims to the mainstream, the Court underscored. "Religious instruction is not unique to Muslims, you know. Our country is a melting pot of cultures, civilisations, religions, let us preserve that. The Act is to bring them into mainstream. Otherwise you are essentially putting people in silos," CJI Chandrachud said..Religious instruction is not unique to Muslims. Our country is a melting pot of cultures, civilisations, religions, let us preserve that.CJI DY Chandrachud.The Court also said that India has many forms of religious instructions, while giving examples of Madarsas and Vedic patshalas."Now if parliament brings a statute for its regulation for some standards then (what is wrong)?," it asked.It added that even medicine has many streams which have different origins."We have Ayurveda which draws from Hindu texts, Siddha from Jains, Unani which is Persian. Now if parliament brings a statute to regulate them that as long as it is not the detriment of anybody ...," CJI Chandrachud remarked..The top court had in May stayed the High Court's decision to declare the Act as unconstitutional. "Article 28(1) of the Constitution provides that no religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds. In striking down the provisions of the Madarsa Act, the High Court, prima facie, has misconstrued the provisions of the Madarsa Act. The Madarsa Act, per se, does not provide for religious instruction in an educational institution maintained out of State funds. The object and purpose of the statutory provisions is regulatory in character," the apex court had said while staying the High Court decision.The final judgment on the validity of the Act was reserved today..Madrasas/madarsas refer to institutions where Islamic studies and other education may be pursued by students.The Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 had defined Madarsa-education as including education in Arabic, Urdu, Persian, Islamic-studies, philosophy and other branches of learning as may be specified by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education.The stated object of the 2004 Act is to empower the Madarsa Education Board by overseeing the functioning of madrasas..Today, CJI Chandrachud observed that the State through the Act can regulate the madarsas and has wide powers to do it."Look at the salutory purpose of the Act. Is it in national interest that you regulate the Madarsa? Even if we deem them unconstitutional, parents will stop send then there sans regulation. Let us be clear States can regulate, and it is a policy statement in the Act."The comment came after Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar, representing a lawyer who had challenged the Act before High Court, argued that syllabus at madarsas was not secular. .During the hearing, National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPRC) faced questions on its stand that religious education should not be conflated with free and compulsory education.CJI Chandrachud asked whether the stand was in respect of all communities."Have you issue circulars or guidelines to places with religious instruction?," the Court asked.Justice Pardiwala went on to question the basis of NCPCR's stand."Has NCPCR studied the Madarsa syllabus? What is religious instructions? It seems you are mesmerized by this term and entire submissions are not on correct basis. There is a fine distinction between religious instructions and medium of imparting education.".Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the appellants, earlier argued that the judgment goes against the principle of secularism. At this, CJI Chandrachud said,"Secularism essentially means to live and let live".Rohatgi answered that the High Court had gone against it.Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, also appearing for the appellants, said that the matter started as a service case before the High Court but it eventually struck down the Act."It started like a service case, and then High Court takes suo motu cognizance of this and wrongfully strikes down," she said.She also said that the High Court conflated regulatory structure with religious instructions to hold that the Act violates the principle of secularism."This conflation is patently wrong from the examination of the statute," it was submitted."Show us the syllabus on what is taught," the CJI asked. "Sanskrit is being taught, Hindi, elementary math, social science, everything is being taught. These are not religious instructions. There are state textbooks," Guruswamy said.During the hearing, the Court also observed that conferment of degrees which may not be recognised, cannot be a ground to strike down the law."Even if they are conferring a degree which is not recognised, certainly that cannot result in striking down the Act"..The State, meanwhile, told the Court that it was in support of the legislation. However, it was also submitted that State has accepted the ruling."Yes I support the validity of the Act. But since constitutionality has been struck down we want to say something. We are defending the legislation but the State did not file a SLP," Additional Solicitor Genera KM Nataraj submitted.It was also submitted that Could should not have struck down the entire law. "It is beneficial also... striking down entire Act was not needed. Some provisions could have been tested if at all," Nataraj said..Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, P Chidambaram, Mukul Rohatgi and Menaka Guruswamy appeared for the appellants today before the apex court. They were assisted by Advocates Rohit Amit Sthalekar, Sankalp Narain, MA Ausaf, MA Ausaf, Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, MA Ausaf, HP Sahi, Srivats Narain, Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Yash Johri, and Lubna Naaz.Senior Advocates Salman Khurshid and MR Shamshad also appeared in the matter.Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar appeared for the lawyer who had filed the petition challenging the Act before the High Court. Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan also represented a respondent. Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh..[Read order]