Action Against Madarsa| State Government Has Authority To Act Without Strictly Adhering To Principles Of Natural Justice: Allahabad HC
|While considering a petition challenging an order passed by the Special Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow directing for an action to be taken against the petitioners in pursuance of a report submitted by the Special Investigation Team (SIT), the Allahabad High Court upheld the legality of the SIT's preliminary inquiry and emphasized that the State Government had the authority to take immediate action, even in emergent circumstances, without strictly adhering to principles of natural justice.
The High Court held so in reference to the proposed actions, notably the filing of FIRs against the office bearers of Madarsas under various sections of IPC.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed that “As regards adherence of principles of natural justice, though the S.I.T. has reported that it had conducted spot inspection and the concerned Madarsas were found non- existent and that the office bearers of the Madarsa could not furnish necessary details in any manner, even if, the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the investigation conducted by the S.I.T. was ex-parte, is accepted for the sake of argument, the Court finds that since the issue relates to withdrawal of or taking any action against the Madarsas, such power to withdraw vests in the Board as per Section 10 of the Act, 2004 and the State Government’s role is spelt out under Section 13 of the Act, 2004”.
The Bench made it clear that the language of said Section provides that the Government has the right to address the Board and to communicate to the Board its views on any matter, with which the Board is concerned and, as a matter of fact, there are provisions for intra-departmental or inter departmental communication in between the State Government and the Board.
Senior Advocate Ami Tandon appeared for the Petitioner, whereas CSC appeared for the Respondent.
The brief facts of the case were that the petitioners challenged an order issued by the Chief Secretary of the Government of U.P., Lucknow., which was triggered by a report of SIT, alleging that they were never afforded an opportunity to participate in the SIT investigation, nor were they given a voice in the decision-making processes surrounding the SIT report or the resolution passed on Dec 19, 2022, casting them as ex-parte, arbitrary, discriminatory, and unjust, thus invoking concerns about a potential violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The Petitioners relied on various documents to establish that recognition was granted to the Madarsas, teachers were appointed, and honorariums were paid with the State Government's aid in the years 2008, 2009, and 2010.
After considering the submission, the Bench stated that the State Government had the authority to take immediate action under the law, even in emergent circumstances, without necessarily adhering strictly to principles of natural justice.
The Bench went on to observe that the closure of a Madarsa did not necessarily mean that its recognition lapsed, and action could still be taken against it.
Insofar as the inter-se role of Board and State Government is concerned, the Bench stated Section 13 of the Act clearly vests the State Government with a right to address the Board with reference to any work conducted or done by the Board and to communicate to the Board its views on any matter with which the Board is concerned and, thereafter, the Board is under obligation to report to the State Government about any such action taken or proposed to be taken upon communication with a further provision that the State Government may, after considering any explanation furnished or representation made by the Board, issue directions consistent with the Act, 2004 which would be complied by the Board.
“Neither the Board nor the State Government is powerless or functionless, in case, any illegality, irregularity, flaw, mischief, misrepresentation etc. comes to their knowledge by any means whatsoever, which may infer that either recognition was wrongfully granted to any Madarsa or, even if rightly granted, the conditions of recognition are being violated or it is not fit, either in the opinion of the Board or the State Government, that the recognition should continue for an indefinite period of time”, added the Bench.
The Bench emphasized that the State Government had the power to communicate with the relevant board and take actions consistent with the law, and therefore reaffirmed the State Government's authority to take necessary action under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2004 when it deemed immediate action necessary.
In conclusion, the Bench declined the petitioners' requests to quash the SIT report and related government actions, while also vacating certain interim orders, and emphasizing the legality of the State Government's actions under the relevant legal provisions.
Cause Title: Anjuman Siddiquia Jamia Noorul Oloom and Ors. v. State of U.P and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2023: AHC: 175301]