Firstly, the petitioners argued that the order dated June 14, 2023, passed by the Divisional Commissioner Jammu, leading to the seizure of madrasas, specifically applied only to the Madrasas operated by Maulana Ali Miyan Educational Trust, Bathindi.

They strongly asserted that their respective educational trusts were entirely unrelated to the mentioned trust and had absolutely no connection to any anti-national or anti-social activities.

Despite the high court’s warning of July 4, the administration, directly governed by the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP)-led Union government, sealed Madrasa Taaleem-ul-Quran and Madrasa Asraful Aloom in Tatani Suroor area of Kishtwar’s Drabshalla tehsil on Tuesday, July 4. Officials stated that the two madrasas are associated with the Jammu-based Maulana Ali Miyan Nadwi Education Charitable (MAMNEC) Trust, which has been accused of violating Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA) norms under an order (No: 301/FCRA/2023/696-714) issued on June 14 by Divisional Commissioner Jammu, Ramesh Kumar.

On July 4, the court had prohibited the administration from taking any punitive action against madrasas in the Union territory, except for those operated by the trust. Consequently, nearly 100 students enrolled in the two schools have been affected by the administration’s recent move.

The case was presided over by Hon’ble Justice Sanjeev Kumar. During the proceedings, the arguments put forth by the petitioners’ counsel, Mr. Gagan Basotra, and the Senior Additional Advocate General, Ms. Monika Kohli, representing the respondents, were heard and considered in detail.

After a thorough examination of the material on record and the order issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, the court conclusively determined that the order dated June 14, 2023, specifically targeted the madrasas operated by Maulana Ali Miyan Educational Trust, Bathindi. Notably, the Divisional Commissioner had not issued any directives concerning other madrasas under different educational charitable trusts, including those managed by the petitioners.

Justice Sanjeev Kumar held that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kishtwar, committed an error in applying the June 14, 2023 order to close down or seize the madrasas run by the petitioners’ trusts, as there was no substantial evidence of their connection to the mentioned trust. The court emphatically stressed that the impugned orders were issued without affording the petitioners an opportunity to be heard or conducting any proper inquiry.

As a result of the comprehensive examination, the High Court granted its approval to the writ petition and nullified the orders of July 3, 2023, issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kishtwar, concerning the seizure of the madrasas operated by the petitioners.

Administrative misdemeanour

A letter written in Urdu was handed to the administrator of Madrasa Taleem-ul-Quran, indicating that the school has been handed over to the administration and ordered to be shut down as per the order (301/FCRA/2023/696-714) of Divisional Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner (DC) Kishtwar under DMK/K/23/686 (dated June 22, 2023) and Additional DC Kishtwar under DM/K/23/762-A (dated July 3, 2023).

The sealing of the madrasas has introduced a fresh dimension to the ongoing controversy, attracting considerable attention and prompting questions regarding the legality and fairness of the Deputy Commissioner’s order. The actions taken by the authorities have given rise to concerns about the potential disruption of education for the students currently enrolled in these institutions.

The petitioners contested the orders issued on July 3, 2023, by the Additional Deputy Commissioner Kishtwar. These orders directed the takeover of the management of the madrasas operated by them, with the buildings to be handed over to the District Administration through the concerned Tehsildar, as previously reported on The Chenab Times. In their challenge, they presented two primary grounds.

Firstly, the petitioners argued that the order dated June 14, 2023, passed by the Divisional Commissioner Jammu, leading to the seizure of madrasas, specifically applied only to the Madrasas operated by Maulana Ali Miyan Educational Trust, Bathindi.

They strongly asserted that their respective educational trusts were entirely unrelated to the mentioned trust and had absolutely no connection to any anti-national or anti-social activities.

Secondly, the petitioners strongly contended that the impugned orders were a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. They argued that these orders were issued without granting them a fair opportunity to be heard or conducting any proper inquiry into the matter.

The court further clarified that if any evidence of law violation emerges during an investigation or inquiry, the respondents have the liberty to take appropriate action. Nevertheless, the court emphasized that no adverse orders shall be passed against the petitioners without providing them due notice and a fair opportunity of hearing. He further added that if it comes to the notice of respondents regarding indulgence in any illegal activity then the action as per law can be initiated by them.

The initiated action against the madrasas is part of a broader crackdown on non-governmental organizations and their affiliates in Jammu and Kashmir, suspected of violating foreign funding norms. According to a Government of India survey in 2013, there were 372 madrasas in Jammu and Kashmir. However, a 2022 book by Dr. Nisar A Bhat, titled “Madrasa Education in Jammu and Kashmir,” indicates that the number has increased to 499, with 16 of them located in Kishtwar district alone. According to the book, these madrasas house nearly half a million books in their libraries, but only 94 have adopted a combination of modern education and religious teachings.

Arshad, the administrator of Madrasa Taleem-ul-Quran, expressed concern about the impact of the government’s decision on his students’ education. He stated that his students receive free education due to the generosity of the public, and denying them the opportunity to learn about their religion is unjust. However, DC Kishtwar, Dr. Yadav, countered this by stating that the students will be given a choice.

They can either continue their religious education, where the district administration plans to appoint a government teacher, or they can opt to join a government-run school anywhere in the district. This approach aims to provide the students with options to ensure continuity in their education. In recent years, the BJP-led Union government has undertaken a stringent action on non-government organizations (NGOs) under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA). Despite these measures, NGOs and other associations received over Rs 22,000 crore in foreign funds during the fiscal year 2021-22. This amount surpassed the funds received in the preceding two years, indicating a notable increase in foreign contributions despite the government’s efforts to regulate them.

This landmark ruling by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court brings immense relief to the petitioners and firmly reiterates the significance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and due process in matters involving educational institutions. The court’s decision constitutes a momentous milestone in the ongoing controversy surrounding the seizure of madrasas in Kishtwar and Udhampur

Judgement can be read here

(The article has been authored by Nabeel Masood an intern with the organisation)

The post Unshackling Education: High Court Unravels Madrasa Order in Jammu and Kashmir appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has initiated a case based on a letter petition moved by Sanjay Tickoo, president of the Kashmiri Pandit Sangharsh Samiti (KPSS).

SabrangIndia had reported previously that in wake of growing anxiety amidst the minority Hindu community in the state, KPSS had written to the HC on June 1, listing the names of members of the Kashmiri Pandit community who had been killed in the Valley so far. The letter also expressed concerns over the appearance of posters by terrorist organisations warning of dire consequences for the members of the community who did not migrate out of the state during the Kashmiri Pandit exodus of the late 80s and early 90s.

Now, Bar and Bench reports that a bench of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Javed Iqbal Wani heard the matter. While Advocate Gowhar Jan appeared for the petitioner, Advocate General DC Raina along with government advocate Sajad Ashraf appeared for the State. The case was adjourned to July 4, 2022 on the request of the petitioner.

What had KPSS said in the letter?

The minority Hindu Kashmiri Pandit community has been in the crosshairs of terrorists over the last few months, and many prominent and beloved members of the community including pharmacists, teachers, government employees and businessmen have been gunned down so far. In fact, Ajay Pandita, a Sarpanch of a village in Anantnag, was killed way back in June 2020. By May 31, 2022, as many as 12 people have been killed.

The community, feeling threatened, wanted to leave the Valley, but the letter alleged, “That the Kashmiri Pandits / Hindus want to leave Kashmir Valley but the Government is not allowing them to leave which can be gathered from the press/news reports and social media statements. The government blocked the roads, used electric currents to barricade the walls of the transit camps, the main doors of the transit camps are closed from outside with locks.”

The letter added that it was “a clear violation of the Right to life which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as on the one hand, UT / Central Administration fail to protect the lives of the religious minorities in Kashmir Valley and on the other hand does not let them leave Kashmir Valley so that they can protect their respective lives.”

The petition demanded a probe into the spate of murders of members of the Kashmiri Pandit community.

The entire letter petition may be viewed here: 

According to Tickoo, “At present a total of 808 families, comprising over 3,400 people live in different parts of the Kashmir Valley.” Many of these non-migrant Kashmiri Pandit families are extremely impoverished and live in squalor with no steady source of income. In wake of the killings, 800 Kashmir Pandits who live in South Kashmir, continue to fear for their safety.

Related:

Minority Kashmiri Hindus fear “something fishy” in South Kashmir
Hate speech impact on Kashmir Valley & Jammu, communal tension reported
Kashmir: Friday sermons in mosques express solidarity with Kashmiri Hindu brethren
Kashmir: Migrant labourer shot dead by militants in Budgam
Kashmir: School teacher Rajni Bala gunned down by terrorists in front of students

The post Kashmiri Pandit killings: Jammu and Kashmir HC initiates case based on letter petition appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has granted protection to a married couple, after the woman alleged that they have been receiving death threats after she embraced Islam and married a Muslim man.

Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey said, “..in order to ensure protection to the life of the petitioners in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it has become necessary to direct respondents 1 to 5 to ensure that the petitioners are not harassed/attacked/kidnapped or caused any harm by respondents 6 and 7 or by anyone at their instance and they shall be allowed to live their married life the way they like and protect their rights in terms of the guarantee as enshrined by the Constitution of India.”

The woman submitted before the court that she, on her own free will without any force and with her sound mind converted to Islam. To prove that the married couple are adults, the court recorded the date of birth certificates issued by the Board of School Education which showed that the woman is 26 years old and the man is 32 years of age.

During the hearing, she contended that it was very difficult for her to appear before the High Court and that she managed through her friends in Jammu. The court also recorded in its order, “She submits that there is a persistent threat to her life as also of the petitioner no. 2 (husband) as she has married petitioner no. 2 to the disliking of respondents 6 and 7 (woman’s parents) and it is on their instance that a large number of people are bent upon to kill the petitioners.”

She claimed that as soon as the news of her conversion came to the knowledge of her family, they started threatening her and the husband. The court also noted that an FIR was registered against the couple at Satwari Police Station by the parents of the woman but directed the SHO of Police Station Satwari, Jammu to not take any coercive steps against them.

The matter has been listed on May 28.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

Social acceptance of live-in couples is increasing: Punjab & Haryana HC grants protection
Punjab & Haryana HC says interfaith marriage invalid as Muslim woman did not convert

The post Woman embraces Islam and marries a Muslim, Jammu & Kashmir HC grants protection appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has granted protection to a married couple, after the woman alleged that they have been receiving death threats after she embraced Islam and married a Muslim man.

Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey said, “..in order to ensure protection to the life of the petitioners in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it has become necessary to direct respondents 1 to 5 to ensure that the petitioners are not harassed/attacked/kidnapped or caused any harm by respondents 6 and 7 or by anyone at their instance and they shall be allowed to live their married life the way they like and protect their rights in terms of the guarantee as enshrined by the Constitution of India.”

The woman submitted before the court that she, on her own free will without any force and with her sound mind converted to Islam. To prove that the married couple are adults, the court recorded the date of birth certificates issued by the Board of School Education which showed that the woman is 26 years old and the man is 32 years of age.

During the hearing, she contended that it was very difficult for her to appear before the High Court and that she managed through her friends in Jammu. The court also recorded in its order, “She submits that there is a persistent threat to her life as also of the petitioner no. 2 (husband) as she has married petitioner no. 2 to the disliking of respondents 6 and 7 (woman’s parents) and it is on their instance that a large number of people are bent upon to kill the petitioners.”

She claimed that as soon as the news of her conversion came to the knowledge of her family, they started threatening her and the husband. The court also noted that an FIR was registered against the couple at Satwari Police Station by the parents of the woman but directed the SHO of Police Station Satwari, Jammu to not take any coercive steps against them.

The matter has been listed on May 28.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

Social acceptance of live-in couples is increasing: Punjab & Haryana HC grants protection
Punjab & Haryana HC says interfaith marriage invalid as Muslim woman did not convert

The post Woman embraces Islam and marries a Muslim, Jammu & Kashmir HC grants protection appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court quashed a detention order passed in February against an NCP member while he still under arrest. The court held that the activities that were made the basis for detention are regular activities of a politician in a democracy

The petition was filed by the detenu, Ali Mohammad Sagar, a member of the National Conference Party, who was arrested on August 6, 2019 under sections 107 [Security for keeping the peace in other cases] and 151 [ Arrest to prevent the commission of cognizable offence] of the CrPC and an order of detention was passed against him on February 5, under the J&K Public Safety Act.

The detention order has been challenged on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, illegal and bad in law; lacks subjective satisfaction and is based on mere apprehension. The counsel for the petitioner, Shuja-ul-Haq pointed out that that the detention order was passed while disregarding the fact that the detenu was already in custody at that time and the detention order is liable to be quashed since there is no mention of any cogent and compelling reasons justifying the detention.

The respondents, on behalf of the detaining authority contended that it was found necessary to detain the detenu to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The respondents further mentioned that the detention order gives cogent reasons wherein the detenu’s July 2019 address is mentioned. In his address, the detenu had allegedly stated that if Article 370 & 35 (A) are abrogated he will unite and raise voice against Union of India and asked party workers to inform the youth of Khanyar Constituency to be ready for mass agitation if Article 370 is revoked. The detention order based on the ground that the detenu has been very vocal against abolishing of Article 370 and 35(A) of Constitution of India and also against bifurcation of erstwhile J&K State. The order also points out that the detenu was able to convince your electorate to come out and vote in huge numbers even during peak militancy and poll boycotts.

The single judge bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma held that the grounds relied upon in the detention order are in fact normal activities of a politician in a democracy. The court stated that his opposition to the abrogation of Articles-370 & 35(A) of the Constitution of India is not something new, and opined that the grounds of detention are rather fragile and do not justify his detention. Reliance was placed on a case decided by the apex court, Mohd. Yousuf Rather vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, (AIR 1979 SC 1925), whereby the detenu was alleged to be a Naxalite and the court had held that a detenu has two rights under Article 22(5) of the Indian Constitution; a.) to be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds on which the order of detention is based and b.) to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention. The court held thus,

The inclusion of an irrelevant or non- existent ground among other relevant grounds is an infringement of the first of the rights and the inclusion of an obscure or vague ground among other clear and definite grounds is an infringement of the second of the rights. In either case there is an invasion of the Constitutional rights of the detenu entitling him to approach the Court for relief.

The High Court held that the detention was also bad in law because the detenue was already under arrest when the detention order was passed and there is nothing on record to show that the detaining authority was aware of the fact or that the detenu was likely to be released. Reliance was placed on another apex court judgment in Vijay Kumar vs. Union of India & ors. (AIR 1988 SC 934) whereby the court had held that in absence of compelling reasons as follows would make the detention illegal:            

“(i) awareness of the detaining authority of the fact that the detenu is already in detention and

(ii) there must be compelling reasons justifying such detention, despite the fact that the detenu is already under detention.”

The court also observed that the detention order failed to mention the dates on which certain protest rallies were addressed by the detenu thus failing to prove a nexus between these rallies and the abrogation of the Articles as mentioned before.

The court held the detention order to be illegal on these grounds and quashed the same and directed that the detenu be released forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case.

The order may be read here:

Related:

J&K: Javed Wani, Kashmiri Muslim and son-in-law of separatist leader, appointed as Judge
“Obviously it is the government’s fault,” Sheen Bharti, Ajay Pandita’s daughter to the Centre
J&K 4G restoration: Contempt petition against MHA Secy for not forming Committee as per SC order
Kashmir: Woman Sarpanch begs for mercy, says will quit post

The post J&K HC quashes detention of NCP member, says his activities were of a normal politician in a democracy appeared first on SabrangIndia.