On 16 January 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) delivered a judgment that reaffirmed a foundational principle of the Indian Republic: executive authority, however assertive, remains subordinate to the Constitution. Quashing an order of the Uttar Pradesh administration that had sealed an unrecognised madrasa in Shrawasti, the Court held that the absence of government recognition does not render a minority educational institution illegal, nor does it authorise the state to shut it down. While such institutions may be disentitled to government grants or official examination privileges, the Court made it clear that no statutory or regulatory provision permits their closure solely on the ground of non-recognition.
Grounded in Article 30(1) of the Constitution and reinforced by Supreme Court precedent, the ruling marks a rare moment of judicial clarity in an increasingly troubled constitutional landscape. Since the Bharatiya Janata Party assumed power at the Centre in 2014 and consolidated its authority across several states, breaches of constitutional safeguards and violations of human and civil rights have steadily been normalised. Measures once regarded as exceptional – summary demolitions, prolonged incarceration without trial, and the routine erosion of due process – have increasingly come to be treated as instruments of ordinary governance.
Nowhere has this transformation been starker than in states such as Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand, after Assam, where executive actions against Muslim lives, properties, and institutions have often proceeded with a troubling sense of impunity. These actions have frequently been accompanied by assaults, intimidation, and vigilantism by extremist groups and even private individuals, ranging from mob violence and targeted attacks to social and economic boycotts. Such episodes commonly unfold amid tacit state indifference, delayed accountability, or selective enforcement of law, further weakening constitutional guarantees and deepening the sense of insecurity among India’s largest religious minority.
Against this backdrop of administrative excess and social hostility, the Allahabad High Court’s verdict stands out as a constitutional reprieve, reaffirming that regulation cannot be converted into repression, and that minority rights do not subsist at the discretion of the executive but endure as enforceable guarantees under the Constitution.
Executive Overreach in Uttar Pradesh
On 1st May 2025, the District Minority Welfare Officer (DMWO) of Shrawasti ordered the closure and sealing of Madrasa AhleSunnat Imam Ahmad Raza on the sole ground that it was not recognised by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education. No allegation of criminality, public disorder, or educational malpractice was levelled. The institution did not seek government aid, nor did it claim entitlement to state-recognised qualifications. Its offence, if any, lay only in being unrecognised.
This administrative action was emblematic of a broader pattern under the Yogi Adityanath-led government in Uttar Pradesh, where regulatory mechanisms are increasingly weaponised to discipline minority institutions. Madrasas, mosques, and Muslim-owned houses have faced demolition or sealing under the garb of legality, often without adequate notice or hearing. The chilling message has been unmistakable: Muslim institutions exist at the mercy of the executive.
The High Court Draws a Constitutional Line
Quashing the DMWO’s order, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the Allahabad High Court delivered a judgment that was both precise in law and firm in constitutional principle. The Court categorically held that there is no provision in law that empowers authorities to stop the functioning of a madrasa merely because it is unrecognised. Rule 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Non-Governmental Arabic and Persian Madrasa Recognition, Administration and Services Regulations, 2016, the Court noted, only disentitles unrecognised madrasas from government grants; it does not authorise their closure.
The Court clarified the legal distinction between recognition and existence. The absence of recognition may limit privileges, but it does not render an institution illegal. By ordering that the seal on the madrasa be removed within 24 hours, the Court reaffirmed that administrative convenience cannot override fundamental rights.
Importantly, the judgment also addressed the state’s argument that unrecognised madrasas might create “complications” for students. The Court rejected this paternalistic justification, noting that the law does not permit closure on speculative grounds. Students and administrators, it held, are free to run institutions at their own risk, provided no law is violated.
Supreme Court Precedent and Article 30(1)
The High Court’s reasoning was firmly anchored in constitutional jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court of India, particularly its ruling of 5 November 2024, in Anjum Kadari vs Union of India. In that decision, the Supreme Court classified minority educational institutions into three categories: those seeking neither aid nor recognition; those seeking aid; and those seeking recognition without aid. Institutions in the first category, the Court held, enjoy the fullest protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
Article 30(1) is unambiguous. It guarantees all religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. This right is not conditional upon state approval. It flows directly from the Constitution’s commitment to pluralism, cultural autonomy, and substantive equality. By recognising that Madrasa AhleSunnat Imam Ahmad Raza fell within this protected category, the Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that constitutional rights do not depend on executive goodwill.
Due Process as a Constitutional Minimum
A related and equally significant aspect of the judgment lies in its emphasis on due process. In a separate but connected ruling, the Lucknow Bench of the Court held that even unregistered or unrecognised madrasas cannot be shut down without following established legal procedure. Government permission, the Court observed, is not mandatory to establish an educational institution, and until an application for recognition is formally rejected, academic activities cannot be suspended.
This insistence on procedural fairness stands in sharp contrast to recent administrative practices, where sealing orders are often issued abruptly, notices are post-facto, and hearings illusory. By restoring due process as a constitutional minimum, the Court has sent a clear message to district administrations accustomed to acting first and justifying later.
Uttarakhand: A Parallel Story
If Uttar Pradesh represents one axis of this administrative excess, Uttarakhand provides another. Acting on directions from Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami, authorities in 2024–25 sealed more than 136 madrasas – by some accounts over 200 – across the state. The justifications ranged from lack of registration to alleged security concerns, echoing a familiar narrative that conflates Muslim educational spaces with illegality.
In April 2025, the Uttarakhand High Court intervened, ordering the unsealing of several madrasas that had been closed without proper show-cause notices. Emphasising that even regulatory action must comply with principles of natural justice, the Court underscored that the rule of law cannot be suspended for any community. Together with the Allahabad High Court’s verdict, these decisions form a modest but meaningful judicial pushback against executive arbitrariness.
Civil Society and Minority Responses
Minority educational bodies and civil society organisations have welcomed the Allahabad High Court’s ruling as a long-overdue clarification. Mr. Syed Tanveer Ahmed, Secretary of the Markazi Taleemi Board, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, stated that the High Court’s ruling carries far-reaching and lasting implications for minority education. He described it as a reaffirmation of constitutional supremacy, as it carefully balances minority rights with legitimate regulatory concerns. Similarly, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind President Maulana Mahmood Madani characterised the judgment as a rebuke to governments that had portrayed the closure of madrasas as an administrative achievement.
Notably, these responses have not called for immunity from regulation. Instead, they have urged madrasa administrators to improve internal management and educational standards, while insisting that reform must occur within a constitutional framework, not through coercive state action.
A ‘Cool Breeze’ in a Hostile Climate
In the larger political climate, where Muslims increasingly experience the state as punitive rather than protective, the Allahabad High Court’s verdict does feel like a “cool breeze” amid scorching winds. It does not dismantle the structures of discrimination, nor does it reverse years of communal targeting. What it does, however, is reassert first principles: that India is governed by a Constitution, not by executive fiat; that minorities are rights-bearing citizens, not subjects to be managed; and that legality cannot be redefined to suit ideological ends.
The judgment also carries implications beyond madrasas. By drawing a clear boundary around executive power, it offers a template for challenging arbitrary actions against other minority-run institutions like churches, gurudwaras, NGOs, and independent schoolsthat may fall foul of shifting political priorities.
Reaffirming Rights: The Imperative for Inclusive Governance
Judicial pronouncements, however welcome, cannot substitute for systemic reform. As long as district officials are incentivised to display “toughness” against minorities, litigation will remain a defensive necessity rather than a proactive safeguard. What is required is a recalibration of governance itself – one that treats constitutional rights as non-negotiable, and minorities as equal stakeholders in the republic.
For now, the reopening of a sealed madrasa in Shrawasti stands as a reminder that the Constitution still speaks, even if it is too often drowned out. Whether this voice will be heeded by governmentsor will require repeated judicial amplificationremains an open question. But in reaffirming that non-recognition is not illegality, and regulation is not repression, the Allahabad High Court has performed its constitutional duty with clarity and courage.