Uttarakhand High Court Asks 'Maktabs' Illegally Using Name 'Madarsa' To File Affidavit Desisting From Such Practice

While asking the authorities to de-seal the 'Maktabs' illegally functioning as 'Madarsa', the Uttarakhand High Court has ordered such Maktabs to file affidavits before the respective Sub Divisional Magistrates (SDMs) to desist from running Madarsa and refrain from using the expression 'Madarsa' in the name of their institutions.

A Single Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed against alleged unlawful sealing of Maktabs without any order from statutory authorities. They argued that such restrictions put upon their functioning is derogatory to the constitutional right granted to Maktabs, where students learn Quran recitation, grammar and ethics.

However, the State defended such move by submitting that only the institutions which are registered and recognised by Uttarakhand Madarsa Education Board ('the Board') are entitled to use the word 'Madarsa' in their name. It further apprised that recently there has been a significant growth in number of institutions which are run as Madarsa but are not recognized by the Board.

The counsel for the State also highlighted that that due to wrongful use of the expression 'Madarsa' by the institutions, which are merely imparting religious teachings, the children and parents belonging to marginalized sections are getting confused and are taking admission in such institutions with the false hope that the education received by them in such institutions will make them eligible for employment under the government or in the corporate sector.

Pertinently, there are two categories of Islamic schools, namely, (i) Maktab, where only religious teachings are imparted to students; and (ii) Madarsa, where in addition to religious teachings, students are prepared for appearing in different examinations like Tahataniya/Fauquania/Munshi/Maulvi etc.

The Court took note of the provisions enumerated in the Uttarakhand Madarsa Education Board Act, 2016, Section 2(h) of which defines 'Madarsa-Education'. Section 2(j) of the Act defines the expression “recognition” which means recognition for the purpose of preparing candidates for admission to the Board's examination. Admittedly, the petitioner-institutions are merely 'Maktabs', which are neither recognised by the Board nor impart education so as to prepare candidates for Board's examination.

Upon such interpretation, the petitioners expressed willingness to furnish undertaking before the concerned SDMs swearing not to run Madarsa nor use the expression 'Madarsa' in the name of institutions/Maktabs run by them till the time their institutions are duly registered/recognized by the Board. Accordingly, the Court ordered –

“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.”

Nevertheless, it was clarified that if petitioners are found unauthorisedly using the expression 'Madarsa' in the name of institutions run by them, the authorities shall be free to take necessary action against them as per law.

Case Title: Madarsa Inamul Ulum Society v. State of Uttarakhand & Others

Case No: Writ Petition (M/S) No. 835 of 2025 & Batch

Date of Order: August 26, 2025

Counsel 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, Advocate

Counsel 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

Click Here To Read/Download Order