The Uttar Pradesh government has formally withdrawn the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa (Payment of Salaries to Teachers and Other Employees) Bill, a legislation passed by the Samajwadi Party government in 2016 that sought to provide madrassa teachers immunity from police and administrative action.
The decision was taken at a state cabinet meeting chaired by Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, which also approved 24 other proposals, including a supplementary budget. Minority Welfare Minister Omprakash Rajbhar confirmed the development, stating that the bill was found to be in violation of constitutional principles, particularly the right to equality before law.
The controversial bill had provisions that effectively barred police investigations and legal proceedings against madrassa teachers and employees, regardless of the nature of allegations. Critics had long argued that such clauses created an unjustified privilege for a specific group, undermining the Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment under the law.
After being passed by both houses of the Uttar Pradesh legislature in 2016, the bill faced immediate resistance from then Governor Ram Naik, who flagged serious constitutional concerns. Naik subsequently referred the bill to the President, citing that its provisions conflicted with fundamental legal principles. As a result, the legislation was never implemented during the tenure of the Akhilesh Yadav-led government.
Following the BJP’s victory in the 2017 assembly elections, the President returned the bill to the state government. The Central government advised Uttar Pradesh to introduce a fresh legislation that would align with constitutional norms. However, instead of reworking the bill, the Yogi Adityanath government chose to withdraw it altogether, citing its inherent legal and constitutional flaws.
Sources in the Minority Welfare Department said the bill’s immunity clauses would have severely restricted the ability of law enforcement agencies to act against irregularities in madrassas, including financial misconduct and administrative violations. The withdrawal is being projected by the government as part of its broader commitment to “one law for all” and transparent governance.
