Secularism means live and let live, mainstreaming answer to ghettoisation: SC in madrasa case
New Delhi, Oct 22: Observing secularism means to "live and let live", the Supreme Court on Tuesday said regulating madrasas was in the national interest as several hundred years of the nation’s composite culture could not be wished away by creating silos for minorities.
The observations came from a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra during the day-long hearing on the pleas challenging the Allahabad High Court judgement, which declared the 2004 Uttar Pradesh law on madrasas as unconstitutional saying it was violative of the principle of secularism.
"The judgement is reserved," the bench said at the completion of the arguments.
At the outset, the Uttar Pradesh government, in response to a query of the bench, said it stands by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 and was of the view that the Allahabad High Court should not have held the entire law as unconstitutional.
Agreeing to the submissions of senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for litigants opposed to the HC verdict, the CJI said, "Secularism means - live and let live."
Referring to the composite national culture, the CJI asked the state government, "Is it not in our national interest that you regulate the madrasas?"
"You cannot wish away several hundred years of history of this nation like this. Suppose, we uphold the high court order and the parents of the children still send them to madrasas then it will just be a silo without any legislative intervention…mainstreaming is the answer to ghettoisation," the bench said.
It said let us preserve India as a melting pot of cultures and religions. "Ultimately we have to see it through the broad sweep of the country. Religious instructions are there not just for Muslims. It is there for Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, etc. The country ought to be a melting pot of cultures, civilisations, and religions. Let us preserve it that way. In fact, the answer to ghettoisation is to allow people to come to the mainstream and to allow them to come together. Otherwise, what we essentially would be doing is to keep them in silos," the CJI said.
The bench said Article 28(3) of the Constitution provides that a student can voluntarily obtain religious instructions with the only bar there should be no compulsion.
It asked as to what was wrong with the law recognising madrasas imparting religious instructions and mandating they should follow certain basic standards and striking down the entire law meant such institutions would remain unregulated.
The bench highlighted that imparting religious instructions was not limited to Muslims only and said if there was an institute training Buddhist monks, could the state ask it to provide some secular education also.
"This is the ethos of our country. Remember, what you are arguing in the context of Islam will apply across all religions in India right from Ved pathshalas to institutions training Buddhist monks, Jain priests, etc.," the CJI said.
The bench said it should not be misunderstood as it was equally concerned that the students of madrasas should also get quality education.
However, quashing the entire law was like throwing out the baby with the bathwater, it said, adding that religious instructions were never an anathema in the country.
Senior lawyer Guru Krishna Kumar said madrasa education would not enable students to be at par with the mainstream students.
"Why do you want them to be at par? You cannot compel them to be at par," the bench said.
Earlier in the day, the bench posed a specific query to Additional Solicitor General K M Natraj, appearing for the state government, on whether he stood by the validity of the law as it provided the authority to regulate madrasas as well.
"Are you standing by the validity of the Act," the CJI asked the law officer when he commenced his submissions on a batch of pleas against the high court verdict.
Natraj said, "I support the validity of the Act. Since, the constitutionality (of the law) has been struck down, we want to say something. We are defending the legislation. The state did not file a SLP (special leave petition)."
The state government filed its response in the high court standing by the Act and it cannot deviate from the stand, the law officer added. The Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 regulates the operation of madrasas in the state and was framed to ensure quality education, while adhering to constitutional principles, in such institutions.
On March 22, the Allahabad High Court had declared the Act as "unconstitutional" and violative of the principle of secularism, and asked the state government to accommodate madrasa students in the formal schooling system.
On April 5, the CJI-led bench had provided a breather to about 17 lakh madrasa students by staying the verdict of the High Court scrapping the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004.
The top court heard eight petitions, including the lead one filed by Anjum Kadari against the high court verdict.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Sanjay Raut demands re-election, alleges irregularities in EVMs during Maharashtra polls
Mumbai, Nov 25: Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut on Monday demanded a re-election in Maharashtra using ballot papers, claiming there were irregularities with the electronic voting machines (EVMs).
Talking to reporters, Raut alleged several complaints about EVMs malfunctioning and questioned the integrity of the recently held elections.
The BJP-led Mahayuti won 230 out of 288 seats in the assembly elections, while the opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi managed 46 seats, with Shiv Sena (UBT) winning just 20 out of 95 seats it contested.
"We have received nearly 450 complaints regarding EVMs. Despite raising objections repeatedly, no action has been taken on these issues. How can we say these elections were conducted fairly? Hence, I demand that the results be set aside and elections be held again using ballot papers," Raut said.
Citing some instances, he said a candidate in Nashik reportedly received only four votes despite having 65 votes from his family, while in Dombivli, discrepancies were found in EVM tallies, and election officials refused to acknowledge the objections.
The Sena (UBT) leader also questioned the credibility of the landslide victories of some candidates, saying, "What revolutionary work have they done to receive more than 1.5 lakh votes? Even leaders who recently switched parties have become MLAs. This raises suspicions. For the first time, a senior leader like Sharad Pawar has expressed doubts about EVMs, which cannot be ignored."
Asked about the MVA's poor performance in the elections, Raut rejected the idea of blaming a single individual.
"We fought as a united MVA. Even a leader like Sharad Pawar, who commands immense respect in Maharashtra, faced defeat. This shows that we need to analyse the reasons behind the failure. One of the reasons is EVM irregularities and the misuse of the system, unconstitutional practices, and even judicial decisions left unresolved by Justice Chandrachud," he said.
Raut stressed that though internal differences might have existed within the MVA, the failure was collective.
He also accused the Mahayuti of conducting the elections in an unfair manner.
"I cannot call the elections fair given the numerous reports of discrepancies in EVMs, mismatched numbers, and vote irregularities across the state," Raut said.
