Why do we need to discuss this?

• The 2004 Act regulated madrasas in Uttar Pradesh, and the High Court concluded that it violated secular principles.
• It had ordered the transfer of madrasa students to regular schools, which affected nearly 17 lakh students across 16,000 madrasas in the state.
  • Petitioners pointed out that the High Court believed that madrasas violated Article 28 of the Constitution, which prohibits religious instruction in institutions fully funded by the State.

Key Observations made by the SC:

• A law regulating a minority institution does not, by itself, violate secularism.
• The CJI referred to the Hindu Religious Endowments and Charitable Institutions Act, which regulates the administration of religious institutions in many states, from Maharashtra to Tamil Nadu.
• The CJI emphasized that the State has the right to legislate to improve the quality of education in government-aided minority-run institutions.
• He noted that children attending madrasas need a broad-based education to learn essential subjects required to lead a proper life and become worthy citizens.

• Minority institutions do not have an absolute right to appoint staff;
• This was upheld in the context of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008.

[2011] In India, if a religious sect/community is given the status of a national minority, what special advantages it is entitled to?

1. It can establish and administer exclusive educational institutions.

2. The President of India automatically nominates a representative of the community to Lok Sabha.

3. It can derive benefits from the Prime Minister’s 15-Point Programme.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 only

(b) 2 and 3 only

(c) 1 and 3 only

(d) 1, 2 and 3

Supreme Court’s Observations:

• The petitioner argued that the new BNS omitted Section 377 of the IPC, which previously criminalized ‘unnatural sex’ and carnal intercourse involving a man, woman, or animal.
• In the Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) case, the Supreme Court struck down Section 377 to the extent that it criminalized consensual sexual acts between adults.
• Non-consensual homosexual acts remained punishable under this provision.
• The BNS does not include provisions criminalizing sexual offences against men, trans persons, and animals.
• During the hearing, the bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra stated that:
  • The Court cannot direct Parliament to create or reintroduce an offence.
  • The creation of offences falls within the parliamentary domain, not under the court’s jurisdiction, even with Article 142.

PYQ:

[2019] With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following?

(a) The decisions taken by the Election Commission of India while discharging its duties cannot be challenged in any court of law.

(b) The Supreme Court of India is not constrained in the exercise of its powers by laws made by the Parliament.

(c) In the event of grave financial crisis in the country, the President of India can declare Financial Emergency without the counsel from the Cabinet.

(d) State Legislatures cannot make laws on certain matters without the concurrence of Union Legislature.