New Delhi, Oct 22 (Reporter) Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its order on a batch of petitions challenging the striking down of the UP Madarsa Education Act A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a batch of petitions filed against the Allahabad High Court’s March 22 order by which it struck down the 'Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004' as unconstitutional. The Bench after hearing arguments from all the parties for two days continuously reserved its judgment. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the petitioners, argued that the High Court decision violated Article 28(2) of the Constitution, which allows religious instruction in institutions run by trusts. He stated that madrasas could still offer religious teachings and shutting them down would infringe on the fundamental right to receive such instruction. Rohatgi also criticised the High Court's judgement for violating secularism principles by depriving minority students of religious education, saying, "You cannot force someone into mainstream education. That is not secularism." Chief Justice Chandrachud clarified that Article 28(3) permits students to voluntarily receive religious instruction without any compulsion. The CJI also questioned the impact of striking down the entire Act, arguing that it would leave madrasas unregulated and hinder government efforts to ensure basic education standards in these institutions. Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar, representing an intervenor against the Act, claimed that the Act favoured one religious community and did not promote secular education. He argued that madrasa students would not have equal opportunities in mainstream professions. However, the CJI emphasised that the country’s religious diversity should be preserved, noting that religious instructions are common across various faiths, and urged integration, not isolation, of such institutions. Justice Pardiwala also pointed out that teaching religion is not prohibited by the Constitution, citing the Aruna Roy judgment. Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan added that madarsa education does not fulfil the promise of quality education under Article 21A, and children should not be limited to a single religious worldview. The bench questioned the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) about its selective focus on madrasas and whether similar concerns had been raised for other religious institutions. Justice Pardiwala also emphasised that there is a difference between "religious instruction" and the medium of education. The petitioners argued that the High Court misinterpreted the Act’s purpose, which was to regulate education for Muslim children rather than solely imparting religious instruction. They urged the Supreme Court to strike down only problematic provisions of the Act rather than dismantling it entirely...////...