NEW DELHI: Supreme Court will pronounce its verdict on Tuesday on two important issues - correctness of its 1978 view that the state can distribute public and private resources for the greater common good, and the validity of Allahabad HC's decision ordering closure of madrassas terming them 'non-secular'.
Both verdicts will be delivered by benches of different strengths led by CJI D Y Chandrachud. A nine-judge bench will decide on the meaning of Article 39(b), which is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy that mandate states to direct its policies towards securing "that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good". A three-judge bench will rule on the validity of HC's madrassa verdict.
SC will decide the correctness of Justice Krishna Iyer's singular socialist view in 1978 that public as well as private resources fall within the ambit of Article 39(b), which was upheld by a series of SC judgments between 1982 and 1996. In 2002, a seven-judge bench reopened the issue while adjudicating the validity of an amendment to Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act that had incorporated the stated objective of Article 39(b) and referred it to a nine-judge bench, which reserved its verdict on May 1.
Allahabad HC on March 22 had quashed the UP Board of Madrassa Education Act, 2004, terming it to be violative of principles of secularism, and directed the state to admit over 12 lakh students studying in 13,364 madrassas in regular schools recognised by the state education board. This was challenged by various madrassas and madrassa teachers' associations.
The HC decision appears to be on shaky ground as even the UP govt defended the validity of the Act before SC even though it had not appealed to the top court against the verdict. The state had said it would defend its legislation before SC and that the law may require reforms to mainstream madrassas, as educational certificates issued by them were recognised only till Class 12. HC had agreed with the UP govt, and while reserving its verdict on Oct 22, had said, "The state has a vital interest in mainstreaming madrassas, otherwise, how do these institutions produce worthy citizens if they are not acquainted with mathematics, science and other such mainstream subjects? We will interpret the Act that way. But to strike down the Act entirely is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water."
Both verdicts will be delivered by benches of different strengths led by CJI D Y Chandrachud. A nine-judge bench will decide on the meaning of Article 39(b), which is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy that mandate states to direct its policies towards securing "that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good". A three-judge bench will rule on the validity of HC's madrassa verdict.
SC will decide the correctness of Justice Krishna Iyer's singular socialist view in 1978 that public as well as private resources fall within the ambit of Article 39(b), which was upheld by a series of SC judgments between 1982 and 1996. In 2002, a seven-judge bench reopened the issue while adjudicating the validity of an amendment to Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act that had incorporated the stated objective of Article 39(b) and referred it to a nine-judge bench, which reserved its verdict on May 1.
Allahabad HC on March 22 had quashed the UP Board of Madrassa Education Act, 2004, terming it to be violative of principles of secularism, and directed the state to admit over 12 lakh students studying in 13,364 madrassas in regular schools recognised by the state education board. This was challenged by various madrassas and madrassa teachers' associations.
The HC decision appears to be on shaky ground as even the UP govt defended the validity of the Act before SC even though it had not appealed to the top court against the verdict. The state had said it would defend its legislation before SC and that the law may require reforms to mainstream madrassas, as educational certificates issued by them were recognised only till Class 12. HC had agreed with the UP govt, and while reserving its verdict on Oct 22, had said, "The state has a vital interest in mainstreaming madrassas, otherwise, how do these institutions produce worthy citizens if they are not acquainted with mathematics, science and other such mainstream subjects? We will interpret the Act that way. But to strike down the Act entirely is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water."
You may also like
Raw Banana: Not only ripe, raw banana can also make health rich, benefits in 5 ways
No competition among Mahayuti partners over CM's post: Fadnavis
"Khud 2 saal rahenge ya nhi..": SP chief Akhilesh takes jibe at Yogi Adityanath over DGP appointment
Relationship tips: 5 relationship rules, if forgotten, love marriage will also come to an end
Dementia symptoms that can appear in the eyes before memory loss
