In recent years, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has increasingly focused its attention on the education of children attending madrasas in India. The commission’s recently released recommendations offer a comprehensive roadmap aimed at ensuring that all children, including those attending madrasas, have access to a formal and quality education in accordance with the Right to Education Act (RTE), 2009. The NCPCR has repeatedly highlighted the dangers of excluding madrasa students from the formal education system, noting that such exclusions often lead to educational deprivation and the violation of children’s fundamental rights.
Background and the Right to Education Act
The Right to Education Act, passed in 2009 under Article 21A of the Constitution of India, guarantees free and compulsory education to every child between the ages of 6 and 14. This landmark legislation represents a critical milestone in India’s efforts to achieve universal education, aiming to provide each child with the foundational skills needed for their intellectual and social development. The RTE Act makes it mandatory for schools to ensure a child-friendly curriculum and to provide essential facilities such as textbooks, libraries, and mid-day meals, which are vital for a conducive learning environment.
However, in 2012, the Government of India introduced an amendment to the RTE Act, which effectively exempted minority institutions, including madrasas, from its provisions. This exemption was grounded in the need to protect the religious and cultural rights of minority communities as enshrined in Articles 29 and 30 of the Indian Constitution. These articles provide minorities with the right to conserve their culture, language, and scripts, thereby allowing institutions like madrasas to prioritise religious education over formal schooling.
While the amendment was intended to preserve the unique cultural and religious identities of minority communities, its implementation has had unintended consequences. According to the NCPCR, the exemption has left many children in these institutions vulnerable, as they are now excluded from the formal education system. As a result, children studying in madrasas are often deprived of essential academic resources and support that are necessary for their holistic development.
NCPCR’s findings on Madrasa Education
The NCPCR began a nine-year study to assess the impact of the 2012 amendment and to better understand the educational challenges faced by children in madrasas. During the course of this study, the commission held consultations with a wide array of stakeholders, including students, teachers, and community leaders. The findings, published in 2021, paint a stark picture of the state of madrasa education in India.
According to the report, the commission found that children attending madrasas were frequently denied access to formal education and were not provided with basic entitlements such as a safe learning environment, adequate infrastructure, and qualified teachers. These issues were especially prevalent in madrasas operating outside the purview of formal government oversight. The commission discovered that many of these institutions failed to comply with basic safety standards and child protection policies, leading to numerous violations of children’s rights.
One of the most alarming aspects of the report was the evidence of child rights violations within madrasas. The NCPCR identified instances of physical punishment, child labour, and substandard living conditions, all of which have had a severe impact on the mental and physical well-being of the children. Without access to basic educational entitlements and a nurturing environment, many of these children are left ill-equipped to face the challenges of modern society, thereby diminishing their future prospects.
Call for Reform
In light of these findings, the NCPCR has put forward several key recommendations to address the challenges in the madrasa education system. The commission has emphasised the need for madrasa students to be integrated into the formal education system, ensuring that they receive the same educational opportunities and rights as other children under the RTE Act.
Speaking to ANI on the issue, NCPCR chief Priyank Kanoongo expressed his deep concerns, stating, “The Commission has released its final report after studying this issue for 9 years. We have found that around 1.25 crore children are deprived of their basic education rights. They are being tutored in such a way that they would work according to the motives of certain people; this is wrong.”
Kanoongo’s remarks reflect the NCPCR’s concerns about the political and ideological influences that may be shaping education in madrasas. He went on to add, “The people who have captured these madrasas are those who used to say that they wanted to preach Islam across India during the India-Pakistan partition.” This statement highlights the potential manipulation of education within certain madrasas, which could lead to indoctrination rather than the development of critical thinking skills and academic growth.
In a bold call to action, Kanoongo further remarked, “There are Madrasa boards in 7-8 states, and we have asked for these boards to be shut down because they have failed to serve their purpose.” This recommendation underscores the NCPCR’s belief that madrasa boards, in their current form, are not fulfilling their intended educational role and that significant reform is necessary.
Kanoongo also raised concerns about the financial structure supporting these institutions. He stated, “Donations are being raised for madrasas. This funding should be stopped, and the Madrasa Board must be disbanded. The Hindu children who are studying in these madrasas must be enrolled in schools.” These remarks point to the need for a transparent and accountable financial system for madrasas, as well as the importance of ensuring that children of all religious backgrounds have access to formal education.
NCPCR’s findings
The NCPCR found that the states and UTs have been reluctant to conduct the mapping of madrasa. It is crucial for the state to fulfil its constitutional duty, as per the RTE Act, 2009, and ensure that all children receive formal and quality education. If the state fails to do so, it constitutes a violation of children’s fundamental rights, as it is the state’s responsibility to safeguard their access to formal education that meets the standards set forth by the Constitution and the RTE Act, 2009.
The Commission pointed out that since independence and the adoption of the Constitution, state governments have failed to provide formal fundamental education to all children, leaving those from certain communities deprived of this critical right. This failure, the commission said, could be attributed either to the oversight of those responsible or their intention to appease specific sections of society for personal advantage. Interestingly, despite Muslims having served as education ministers for 20 years, only 5.5 per cent of students come from the Muslim community, according to the AISHE report of 2019-20.
The Commission noted, “On the other hand, Scheduled Caste students constitute 14.7 per cent, and Scheduled Tribe students constitute 5.6 per cent of the total enrolment, while 37 per cent of students belong to Other Backward Classes. The SC/ST communities have not had the privilege of many education ministers from their own communities. Despite the opportunity to benefit from reservations under different categories, the representation of the Muslim population in higher education remains low. This can be attributed to the fact that no parallel system of education was ever established for SC/ST communities, whereas children from Muslim communities are being drawn towards madrasas. Both Dr B.R. Ambedkar and Mahatma Jyotirao Phule were strong advocates for education, particularly for marginalised communities, viewing it as a tool for social upliftment and empowerment. Following their leaders’ ideals, people from these communities recognised the importance of education and pursued formal schooling. This shows that leaders lead the way for society. The SC/ST community embraced education, but the representatives of the Muslim community did not carry forward the teachings of their religion and instead kept children away from their fundamental right to serve their own selfish purposes.”
The commission also pointed out an instance where Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the first education minister of independent India, delivered a speech in Deoband in 1950. In his speech, he described the academic importance and greatness of Darul Uloom. The commission noted that this idea does not align with the promises made by the Constitution of India.
The report stated, “The first education minister of independent India, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, was a founding member of the Anjuman-i-Ulama-i-Bangala in 1913, which would later become the Jamiat Ulema-e-Bangala branch of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind in 1921. He visited Deoband in A.H. 1370 (1950-1951). Maulana Azad delivered a speech in which, after mentioning the peculiarities of the ideal of life at the Darul Uloom, its academic importance, and his longstanding relations with it, the idea doesn’t seem to match what was promised by the Constitution of India to the children. Before the 86th Amendment in 2002, Article 45 read: ‘The State shall endeavour to provide, within a period of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years.’”
NCPCR’s Key Recommendations
Withdrawal of Non-Muslim Children from Madrasas
The NCPCR has issued a crucial recommendation regarding non-Muslim children currently attending madrasas without explicit parental consent. The Commission has called for these children to be withdrawn and enrolled in formal schools in accordance with the RTE Act, 2009. The recommendation articulates: “Making a child profess a religion different from their birth religion shall amount to a violation of Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (JJ Act 2015). Not only are children’s fundamental rights being infringed, but the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, is also being disregarded. This is sometimes done by institutions that function on State funds.” The report further argues that any provision excluding children from the benefits of the right to education runs counter to the spirit of the Constitutional principles adopted by the people.
The NCPCR highlighted critical constitutional provisions, stating, “Article 29(2) of the Constitution states that no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving State aid on grounds of religion, race, caste, language, or any of them. Article 28(3) further states that no person attending an educational institution recognised by the State or receiving aid from State funds shall be required to take part in any religious instruction or attend religious worship conducted in such institutions or premises unless the person, or in the case of a minor, their guardian, has given consent.” However, the Commission lamented that, “in most cases, States/UTs have failed to provide evidence of parental consent for non-Muslim children attending madrasas imparting Islamic education.”
Consequently, the NCPCR recommended that “all non-Muslim children be withdrawn from madrasas and enrolled in schools to receive fundamental education as per the RTE Act, 2009.” The report urged state governments to take immediate steps to remove Hindu and non-Muslim children from madrasas.
In June, the NCPCR had requested the Secretary of the Department of School Education to direct states to inspect madrasas bearing UDISE codes and revoke their recognition if they failed to comply with RTE norms. Following up in July, the Ministry asked state education departments for inspection reports. The NCPCR’s report criticised madrasas for their “arbitrary mode of working” and the absence of a standardised curriculum, asserting the necessity for non-Muslim children to be admitted to formal schools.
Furthermore, the NCPCR called for an immediate cessation of state funding for madrasas that do not meet educational standards and for the restructuring or closure of madrasa boards. In a submission to the Supreme Court last month, the NCPCR argued that the madrasa education system is not comprehensive and violates the RTE Act. The Supreme Court is currently hearing appeals against an Allahabad High Court ruling that deemed the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004, “unconstitutional” on the grounds of violating the principle of secularism and fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Ensure Formal Education for All Children
The NCPCR has made a clear directive that states must ensure that all Muslim children attending madrasas are also enrolled in formal schools, and receiving education according to the curriculum and timing prescribed by the RTE Act. The Commission’s report emphasised, “Formal education for all children is a fundamental right, and hence every child is entitled to quality education as per the RTE Act, 2009. States are obligated to provide such schooling, where children up to class 5 attend school for 4 hours and children from classes 6 to 8 attend school for 6 hours. Failure to fulfil this duty is not only against the welfare of the children but also contradicts our constitutional ethos and principles.” The Commission observed that both religious and fundamental education could be imparted concurrently, but emphasised that it should not occur within the same institution.
To this end, the NCPCR recommended, “Therefore, States should ensure that all children from the Muslim community attending madrasas, whether recognised or unrecognised, are enrolled in formal schools and receive education as per the prescribed time and curriculum under the RTE Act, 2009.”
Cease State Funding for Non-Compliant Madrasas
The NCPCR has urged the termination of state funding for madrasas that do not comply with the RTE Act. The Commission stressed that madrasa boards failing to meet educational standards should be closed down or restructured. The report stated, “State funds should not be spent on any instruction outside the RTE Act, 2009, as this would violate the rights of children. The responsibility of providing religious education lies with the concerned community, for which adequate provisions are made under the Constitution. Without indulging in any form of appeasement, the State should recognise its responsibility as enshrined by the Constitution and the RTE Act, 2009, and allocate resources to ensure children receive formal, quality education.” The NCPCR cautioned that failing to do so results in violations of fundamental rights at an institutional level. It added, “Merely constituting a board or obtaining a UDISE Code does not indicate that madrasas are complying with the provisions of the RTE Act, 2009.”
The report reiterated that “there is no discrimination against minority groups.” However, it warned that any funding provided to an institution under the guise of education that undermines the implementation of the RTE Act, 2009, is unconstitutional. The Commission thus recommended that state funding for madrasas and madrasa boards be halted across all States/UTs, emphasising that in the case of Uttar Pradesh, this is subject to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on SLP (Civil) No. 008541 of 2024.
No State Funding for Religious Instruction
In its recommendations regarding madrasas, the NCPCR made it clear that state funds should not be allocated for religious instruction,
NCPCR’s recommendation read, “The misuse of the MoU signed between NIOS and Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind (JUH) has also brought attention to the role of NIOS in the matter. Despite knowing that it is a constitutional obligation of the State to provide free and compulsory elementary education to all children, NIOS signed an MoU with JUH while being aware that these children were not attending formal education in schools up to class VIII. The MoU contributed to keeping these children out of school. Therefore, the Ministry of Education (MoE) may initiate action to examine the role of NIOS in this regard.”
Comments