SP not to ally with RLD, tie-up only with Congress in UP

New Delhi, Apr 5: In a big relief to about 17 lakh madrassa students in Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court today paused an Allahabad High Court order scrapping the UP Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004. This allows about 16,000 madrasas in the state to continue functioning under the 2004 law.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said that the high court decision was prima facie not correct and issued notices to the UP and central governments, and the Madrassa board.

The high court had last month declared the 2004 law "unconstitutional" for allegedly violating the principle of secularism and directed the government to accommodate the madrasa students in the formal education system.

The Supreme Court put it on hold on Friday, saying that the aims and objectives of the Madrassa Board are regulatory in nature and that the establishment of the board itself will not affect secularism.

"The high court, in striking down the provisions of the Act, directed the relocation of the students. This would affect the 17 lakh students. We are of the view that the direction of relocation of students to other schools was not warranted," said the Chief Justice.

If the purpose of the PIL is to ensure that madrassas provide secular education in core subjects such as mathematics, science, history, and languages, the solution would not be to repeal the provisions of the Madarsa Act 2004, he added.

The central and state governments backed the high court judgment in the Supreme Court, with the centre saying suspected entanglement of religion and other relevant issues must be debated.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the madrassas, said religious education cannot mean religious instruction and that the high court order will leave 10,000 madrassa teachers and 17 lakh students in lurch. But the state government said it has made arrangements for the teachers and students.

Mr Singhvi argued it is wrong to say madrassa education doesn't have quality, isn't universal in nature, and is not broad-based. Singling out the madrassas for a ban is discriminatory and the Supreme Court had said so in the Aruna Roy vs Union of India, 2002 verdict, he pointed out.

The Chief Justice said that the issues that have been raised merit closer reflection and posted the matter for further hearing in the second week of July.

New Delhi, Apr 12: India on Friday asked its citizens not to travel to Iran or Israel amid escalating tensions between the two countries following a strike on the Iranian consulate in Syria 11 days ago.

Iran blamed Israel for the strike and there have been fears that Tehran may launch an attack on Israel soon.

In an advisory, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) also urged the Indians residing in Iran and Israel to exercise utmost precautions about their safety and restrict their movements to minimum.

“In view of the prevailing situation in the region, all Indians are advised not to travel to Iran or Israel till further notice,” it said.

“All those who are currently residing in Iran or Israel are requested to get in touch with Indian Embassies there and register themselves,” the MEA said.

“They are also requested to observe utmost precautions about their safety and restrict their movements to the minimum,” it added. 

The Delhi High Court rejected Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and remand order passed by the trial court in connection with the excise policy case. The court delivered the verdict in the excise policy case on Tuesday.

In its order, the high court said the petition challenged the arrest and said it was in violation of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). "The court clarifies that the plea is not for bail but for declaring the arrest illegal," Bar and Bench reported while citing the court order.

The high court said the material collected by the ED “reveals Arvind Kejriwal conspired and was actively involved in use and concealment of proceeds of crime." 

“The ED case also reveals that he was involved in his personal capacity as well as convenor of AAP," the order said.

Kejriwal had earlier questioned the timing of the arrest that came just ahead of the Lok Sabha Elections 2024.  Reacting to this, the court said, “Petitioner has been arrested in money laundering case and court has to examine his arrest and remand as per law irrespective of timing of elections."

Reacting to Kejriwal's argument casting doubt on the statements of “approvers" in the excise policy case, the court said the statements of “Raghav Magunta and Sarath Reddy are approver statements which were recorded under the PMLA as well as Section 164 CrPC".

“To cast doubt on the manner of recording statement of approver would amount to casting aspersions on the court and judge," the order added. “The law of approver is over 100 years old and not one year old. It cannot be suggested that it was enacted to implicate the present petitioner (Kejriwal)," it added.