India is very diverse particularly religious. Including Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, and Jainism, to name just a few. Such religious diversity contributes quite immensely to India’s culture, festivals, and even its legal system. The Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and it follows a secular model in which the state treats all religions equally. The recent judgment of the Supreme Court on the importance of institutions like madrasas, Vedic schools and Buddhist monasteries came into the limelight. The bench of Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud highlighted that’s is it not our national interest that you regulate the madrasas? you cannot abolished 700 year of history like this.
The bench of Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud addressed that Religious Instruction Not an Anathema, the bench further brought out the point that religious instructions, in a madrasa or any religious school, are not violative per se of the constitutional values. The Constitution permits freedom to practicing religion and to conserve their cultures under Articles 25 to 30, hence there is no reason why even to the minorities, institutions should not be allowed to give religious instructions to their students provided these are in compliance with a broader legal framework.
Rather than declaring the Act unconstitutional, the court emphasized the role and responsibility of the state with regards to regulating and modernizing such schools. This means that the state is duty-bound to ensure that the students in these schools receive a balanced education with a combination of both religious and secular or modern subjects as is embodied in national interest and even as a facet of the right to education under Article 21A. Under this undergirding, religious freedom never contravenes the limits imposed on it from the state’s duty in ensuring that its students are not debarred of essential modern education.
The bench’s observation reiterates the melting-pot idea of India, with its varied religions and cultures. “The unrepresentative nature of the institutions is likely to lead to ghettoization-a risk which can be furthered by the very action of devaluation,” it cautions. And for the judges, this also means inclusiveness, where the religious institutions should move into the mainstream of education.
The Court noted that if some order came against Madarsas it would create a precedent for all religious institutions like Vedic pathshalas or Buddhist monasteries. That takes the principle of equality before the law (Article 14) a step further by showing how secularism in India respects the coexistence of different
faith-based education systems.
The Supreme Court’s observation is such that it reflects a balance showing its attempt to protect India’s constitutional values while observing its religious and cultural streams.
