Upholding the rule of law, rather than resorting to arbitrary orders, is essential if democracy is to remain credible and inclusive for all citizens.
Ghalib Shams | Clarion India
THE recent wave of madrasa closures in Uttarakhand has sparked a debate that extends far beyond educational institutions. On the surface, this action was carried out on Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami’s orders for the inspection of unregistered madrasas, under which more than 700 institutions were investigated and over 200 were sealed. However, when the details came to light through the Right to Information (RTI), it was revealed that no clear law or regulation actually existed behind this entire process. Thus, an administrative order not only affected hundreds of institutions but also raised serious questions about democratic transparency and constitutional requirements.
Social activist and lawyer, Advocate Nadeemuddin, had requested details of the regulations and rules behind this action from the Madrasa Board, the Minority Welfare Department, and the district administration. Various departments did provide some letters, but none of them presented any legal rule or regulation. Even during the appeal, before the Deputy Director of the Minority Welfare Directorate, Hira Singh Basera, district officials admitted that they did not have any legal basis for the inspection and sealing of madrasas.
According to the available documents, on 19 December 2024 a letter was sent from the chief minister to the principal secretary, in which an inspection of unregistered madrasas was ordered and a report was requested. Following this, on 23 December the Minority Welfare Department instructed all district magistrates to constitute high-level committees and submit reports within ten days. On the basis of these instructions, inspections and sealing operations were carried out at the district level.
The reports also revealed that, overall, a total of 680 madrasas were inspected across eight districts, of which 410 were registered and 270 were unregistered. Interestingly, not a single piece of evidence was found of any suspicious or illegal activity in any madrasa. According to the district-wise details, out of 93 madrasas in Dehradun, 36 were registered and 57 were unregistered. In Udham Singh Nagar, out of 237 madrasas, 112 were registered and 125 unregistered. In Haridwar, out of 328 madrasas, 259 were registered and 69 unregistered. In Pithoragarh, of the three madrasas inspected, one was registered and two were unregistered; in Almora, all 16 madrasas were found to be unregistered; while in Tehri, out of three madrasas, two were registered. In Rudraprayag and Chamoli districts, no functioning madrasa was found.
The entire exercise produced no meaningful results. Hundreds of madrasas were scrutinised, yet no institution was found suspicious and no evidence of illegal activity was discovered. The question that arises is: When no law even existed, what was the basis for the sealing? The strength of democracy lies not in administrative orders but in the rule of law. That is why the locks placed on madrasas in Uttarakhand appear not only to be in conflict with constitutional principles but also to deepen mistrust within the minority community.
The madrasa closures in Uttarakhand stand as a reminder of the dangers posed when governance bypasses legal frameworks. Administrative authority, when exercised without the backing of clear laws, risks undermining the very foundation of democracy. For a pluralistic society like India, actions targeting minority institutions without legal grounds not only threaten constitutional safeguards but also erode social trust. Upholding the rule of law, rather than resorting to arbitrary orders, is essential if democracy is to remain credible and inclusive for all citizens.
