Safiya Malik

The High Court of Uttarakhand Single Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari held that premises sealed by state authorities shall be de-sealed subject to an undertaking that institutions will neither run as Madarsa nor use the expression ‘Madarsa’ in their names until due registration with the Uttarakhand Madarsa Education Board. The Court directed that petitioners would be permitted to run Maktabs from the premises without interference, provided they abide by their undertaking, while state authorities would retain liberty to take action in case of violation.

The matter arose from a group of writ petitions filed by various petitioners, including one society operating a Maktab in District Dehradun since 2020. The petitioners challenged the sealing of their premises by district authorities. The relief sought was for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permanently unseal the premises situated at Khata no. 422, Khasra no. 3866 ka, Rasoolpur (Canal Bypass Road), Tehsil Vikasnagar, District Dehradun, which they alleged were illegally sealed.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Order XXI Rule 102 CPC Bar Not Applicable Where Suit Property Purchased From Third Party and Not Judgment-Debtor

The grievance raised was that the premises where they were running Maktabs had been sealed without prior notice, without justification, and without any order by a statutory authority. The petitioners argued that their right to run a Maktab, where Quran recitation, grammar, and ethics are taught, was a constitutionally protected right, and interference by the state authorities was unsustainable.

The petitioners referred to a letter issued on 4 March 2025 by the Deputy Registrar of the Uttarakhand Madarsa Education Board to the Secretary, Minority Welfare Department. This letter identified two categories of Islamic schools: Maktabs, where only religious teachings are imparted, and Madarsas, where in addition to religious teachings, students are prepared for examinations such as Tahataniya, Fauquania, Munshi, and Maulvi. It revealed that 416 Madarsas were registered with the Uttarakhand Madarsa Education Board, while 88 institutions had applied for registration as of the date of the letter. The letter also mentioned that any Madarsa not registered with the Board falls into the category of illegal Madarsa.

The State, represented by counsel, submitted that only institutions registered and recognized by the Madarsa Board may use the expression ‘Madarsa’ in their name. It was argued that there had been a mushrooming growth of institutions claiming to be Madarsas without recognition. According to the State, this misuse of the expression misled children and parents from marginalized sections, who believed that the education imparted would qualify them for government or corporate employment. The State argued that the education received in such unrecognized institutions did not provide those opportunities, and intervention was necessary to prevent exploitation.

The Court noted that the Uttarakhand Madarsa Education Board Act, 2016, defines “institution” in Section 2(f) as a Madarsa or an Oriental College established and administered by Muslim minorities and recognized by the Board. Section 2(h) defines “Madarsa-Education” as education in Arabic, Urdu, Persian, Islamic studies, Tibb, logic, philosophy, and other branches specified by the Board. Section 2(j) defines “recognition” as recognition for the purpose of preparing candidates for admission to the Board’s examination. Section 9(g) lists recognition of institutions for examinations as one of the Board’s functions.

The Court further referred to the Uttarakhand Non-Governmental Arabic and Persian Madarsa Recognition Regulations, 2019. These regulations define levels of education such as Tahataniya (elementary classes) and Kamil (graduation degree). Regulation 3 deals with recognition of institutions as Madarsas, Regulation 4 prescribes eligibility conditions, Regulation 6 sets norms for buildings, Regulation 7 provides infrastructure requirements, and Regulation 12 provides for inspection, suspension, and withdrawal of recognition.

The State’s counsel argued that institutions run by the petitioners were neither registered nor recognized, yet they deliberately used the expression ‘Madarsa’ to attract students, misleading them into believing that the education would lead to further opportunities in modern subjects and employment.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that they were willing to give an undertaking before the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate that they would neither run Madarsa nor use the expression ‘Madarsa’ in the name of their institutions until they were duly registered and recognized.

Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari recorded: “Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, therefore, these are being heard and decided together by this common judgment.” The Court observed that the grievance was that premises were sealed without authority of law and that the right to run a Maktab is a constitutionally protected right. The Court considered the letter from the Deputy Registrar and the statutory scheme under the 2016 Act and 2019 Regulations.

The Court stated: “It is not in dispute that State Legislature has enacted The Uttarakhand Madarsa Education Board Act 2016.” The Court extracted the relevant definitions under the Act, including “institution,” “Madarsa-Education,” and “recognition,” and the functions of the Board under Section 9(g). The Court recorded the submission of the State Counsel that institutions run by petitioners were not registered, and that they were using the expression ‘Madarsa’ unauthorisedly, thereby misleading students and parents.

Also Read: Madras High Court Discharges Accused in Gandhi Statue Damage Case | Holds TNPPDL Act Inapplicable to Private Property and IPC Charges Unsustainable Without Sanction or Overt Act

The Court also recorded the submission of petitioners’ counsel that they were ready to give an undertaking that they would neither run Madarsa nor use the expression ‘Madarsa’ until registration and recognition by the Board.

Justice Tiwari held: “Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the undertaking given on behalf of petitioners through their respective Counsel, writ petitions are disposed of by providing that the premises/buildings, which are being used by petitioners for running educational institutions shall be de-sealed subject to petitioners giving undertaking in the form of affidavit before the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate that they will neither run Madarsa nor use the expression ‘Madarsa’ in the name of institutions run by them till registration of the concerned institution with the Madarsa Board and petitioners shall be permitted to run Maktab from the premises in question and no interference with the right to run Maktab will be made without any authority of law.”

The Court clarified: “However, it is made clear that if petitioners fail to abide by the undertaking given by them or if they are found unauthorisedly using the expression ‘Madarsa’ in the name of institution run by them, the authorities shall be free to take necessary action against such petitioner.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vinay Bhatt, Mr. Mohd. Matlub, Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Shariq Khurshid, Mr. Kaushal Pande, Mr. Mehboob Rahi, Mr. Imran Ali Khan, Mr. Ketan Joshi and Mr. Junaid Alam, Counsel for the petitioners.

For the Respondents: Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General, with Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel, for the State. Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate, for the MDDA.

Case Title: Madarsa Inamul Ulum Society v. State of Uttarakhand & Others (with connected petitions)

Neutral Citation: 2025: UHC:7555

Case Number: Writ Petition (M/S) No. 835 of 2025 (with connected petitions)

Bench: Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari