Notice from the Supreme Court to Assam regarding SLP contesting Madrasa Act
On February 4, 2020, a division bench of the High Court ruled that state-funded madrasas were not minority institutions. The bench was composed of Chief Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Soumitra Saikia. The Assam Repealing Act, 2020's constitutional legality was confirmed, and a writ petition submitted by the 13 petitioners was denied. The HC bench had decided that the petitioners' assertion that the madrasas are minority institutions that were founded and run by the minority lacks support and is, thus, unacceptable. Imad Uddin Barbhuiya was one of the petitioners who claimed in their SLP that the High Court erred in holding that because madrasas are operated by the government, they cannot teach religion.
In response to a plea challenging the Gauhati High Court decision upholding the rule for the conversion of state-run madrasas into regular schools, the Supreme Court has given the Assam government notice. On a special leave petition (SLP) submitted by 13 persons, a bench of justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar issued the notice on Tuesday. Nearly 400 madrasas had been turned into conventional schools by the state government. On February 4, 2020, a division bench of the High Court ruled that state-funded madrasas were not minority institutions. The bench was composed of Chief Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Soumitra Saikia. The Assam Repealing Act, 2020's constitutional legality was confirmed, and a writ petition submitted by the 13 petitioners was denied. The HC bench had decided that the petitioners' assertion that the madrasas are minority institutions that were founded and run by the minority lacks support and is, thus, unacceptable.
Imad Uddin Barbhuiya was one of the petitioners who claimed in their SLP that the High Court erred in holding that because madrasas are operated by the government, they cannot teach religion.
What's Your Reaction?
