NCPCR plea over shifting of madrasa students can go before HC: SC

The Supreme Court on Monday said the challenge to the communications issued by child rights body NCPCR urging states to shift students in unrecognised madrasas to government schools could be raised before the high court concerned.

The petitioner organisation Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind has challenged the action of the Uttar Pradesh and Tripura governments directing students of unrecognised madrasas to be shifted to government schools. 

 

A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh told the counsel appearing for the petitioner that it would extend the protection given by the apex court earlier and grant them liberty to move the high court.

In its order passed on October 21 last year, the top court stayed the operation of the communications issued by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and consequential actions of some states.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the petitioner, said there was already an interim order of the apex court staying the operation of the circulars. 

 

She said the matter was required to be heard finally.

The counsel appearing for Uttarakhand said the top court had earlier indicated the matter could go to the high court.

Jaising said a three-judge bench of the apex court had already passed an order in the matter.

"You (petitioner) can still go to the high court. It is a constitutional court," the bench said. 

 

Jaising said she was ready to argue the matter as soon as the respondents would file their responses.

"We are only saying you can approach the high court. Now, there is already a protection which you have got. We will extend the protection and will give you liberty to approach the high court," the bench added.

After Jaising sought some time to take instructions, the bench said, "Have faith in the high court."  The matter would be taken up after three weeks. 

 

On October 21, 2024, the top court stayed the NCPCR's communications issued on June 7 and June 25 the same year.

It also directed the consequential orders of the states not to be acted upon.

The apex court further allowed the petitioner to make states, other than Uttar Pradesh and Tripura, as parties to its petition.