By Arun Pratap Singh
Garhwal Post Bureau
Nainital, 12 Aug: The Uttarakhand High Court today heard together a bunch of petitions challenging provisions and prescribed norms of the Uttarakhand Minority Education Authority relating to madrasas and schools in the state. Several petitions received in this regard have been clubbed into a single case by the High Court. During the hearing, the state government sought additional time to file its response and prepare for the matter. The petitioners did not oppose the request for time but urged the court to direct the government to place on record all the documents and the responses that have not yet been filed. The division bench has fixed 1 September for the next hearing.
The matter was heard by a Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and also comprising of Justice Subhash Upadhyay. During the hearing, the Additional Advocate General appearing for the state government informed the court that an application had been moved by the government seeking further time to respond to the petitions and requested that the matter be listed after three weeks.
Senior Supreme Court advocate Ahmad Shamshad, appearing for the petitioners, did not oppose the government’s request for additional time. However, he submitted that, if the matter is being listed after two to three weeks, the State Government should in the meantime file all the documents and responses that had not so far been placed before the court.
It may be recalled that several petitions have been filed by different madrasas and educational institutions, including a madrasa associated with the KBN Society in Udham Singh Nagar, as well as some individuals. According to the petitioners, the madrasas have been functioning under the respective madrasa societies since 2006 and impart both the religious as well as modern education to students. They have also claimed that the institutions have been recognised by the state government.
The petitions challenge provisions of the Uttarakhand Minority Education Act and the norms prescribed for madrasas and school education, which were revised by the government in June 2026. The petitioners have contended that the revised standards and requirements have been prescribed with a very short period for compliance, making it difficult for the madrasas to fulfil the new conditions within the stipulated time.
According to the petitioners, failure to comply with the revised provisions can result in the institutions facing action, including closure, from the coming academic session. They have expressed apprehension that the closure of such institutions would directly affect thousands of students who studying in these Madrasas and disrupt their education and future prospects.
The petitioners have also relied upon Article 30 of the Constitution, which guarantees religious and linguistic minorities the fundamental right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. They have contended that the revised provisions should not be enforced in a manner that infringes upon the constitutional rights of minority educational institutions.
The petitioners further submitted that under the amended rules, failure to follow the prescribed procedure could attract a penalty of up to Rs 5 lakhs besides the provision for closure of the madrasa. They argued that the institutions concerned do not receive any financial grant from the government for their functioning and are being run independently. On this ground, they have sought permission to continue operating and contended that the revised regulations should not be applied to them in the manner proposed by the authorities.
The petitioners also reminded that the matter has been pending before the High Court since 2025 and that the state government has so far not filed a clear and comprehensive response to their pleas. They urged the court to take on record the government’s response and relevant documents before proceeding with the final consideration of the challenge to the revised rules.
The revised regulations have been challenged by several institutions and organisations, including Ali Education Welfare Association, Head, Anglo Indian Association, and KBN Education, besides various madrasas. The petitioners have questioned the manner in which the revised norms have been introduced and their applicability to institutions that are not dependent on government grants.
The High Court, while allowing the state government additional time to place its response on record, directed that the matter be listed again on 1 September. The next hearing is expected to bring greater clarity on the government’s stand on the revised norms and the petitioners’ objections regarding their implementation, particularly in relation to minority educational institutions and the constitutional protections available to them.
