SC stays NCPCR recommendation to shut govt-funded Madrassas for non-compliance with RTE | India News – Times of India

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the recommendation of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and consequential action by Centre and states, which called for the closure of government-funded or aided Madrassa across the country for alleged non-compliance with the Right to Education (RTE) Act.
The decision, delivered by the bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, alongside Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, halted immediate actions by the Centre and states following the NCPCR’s directive.
The top court ordered the communications of the NCPCR issued on June 7 and June 25 this year should not be acted upon. It also said the consequential orders of the states shall also remain stayed.
The apex court’s intervention came in response to a plea by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, which argued that the NCPCR’s recommendations infringed upon the rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Jamiat told the SC that “the pervasive State action violates the fundamental rights of the Minorities running such Madrassas, there is absolutely no authority in law to conduct such a blanket exercise as well neither with State nor the Union, and certainly not with the NCPCR.”
Counsel for Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, Indira Jaising, contended that the sweeping nature of the NCPCR’s directive lacked legal authority and would adversely impact the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
The NCPCR’s recommendation, issued last week, urged state governments to cease funding to Madrassa boards, dissolve these boards altogether, and transfer students attending Madrassas to mainstream educational institutions. This directive, as per the NCPCR, aimed to enforce compliance with the RTE Act and ensure that all children, including those in Madrasas, receive standardized education aligned with national curriculum standards.
Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind approached the Supreme Court seeking immediate intervention. They argued that such blanket actions by the state and union governments, supported by the NCPCR, lacked legal backing and could not be justified under current legislative frameworks.