Allahabad HC questions UP order shutting unrecognised madrasa, says non-recognition d
Allahabad HC questions UP order shutting unrecognised madrasa, says non-recognition doesn’t mean closure
M.U.H
20/01/202629
“The seal put on the madarsa will be opened within 24 hours of production of a certified copy of this order,” the Allahabad High Court ruled on January 16, 2026.
Questioning the Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to order the closure of an unrecognised madrasa, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court observed that the absence of official recognition does not automatically justify shutting down an educational institution.
The court was hearing a writ petition filed by Madarsa Ahle Sunnat Imam Ahmad Raza, which challenged a May 1, 2025 order issued by the District Minority Welfare Officer of Shrawasti district. The order had directed the madrasa to cease functioning on the ground that it was operating without official recognition.
A bench comprising Justice Subhash Vidyarthi noted that under the Uttar Pradesh Non-Governmental Arabic and Persian Madarsa Recognition, Administration and Services Regulation, 2016, the consequence of non-recognition is limited to the denial of government grants and does not, by itself, mandate the closure of an institution.
Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, advocate Sayyed Farooq Ahmad argued that the authorities had misapplied the law.
“The regulations clearly provide that an unrecognised madrasa is only disentitled from receiving any grant from the State. Non-recognition does not result in closure,” Ahmad submitted before the court.
The counsel further informed the bench that the madrasa was not seeking any financial assistance from the government, rendering the closure order legally untenable.
“The petitioner is not asking for any grant from the State. Therefore, directing closure of the madrasa on the ground of non-recognition is beyond the scope of the regulation,” Ahmad argued.
Referring specifically to Regulation 13 of the 2016 Rules, the petitioner’s counsel maintained that the Minority Welfare Officer lacked statutory authority to issue such a directive.
“The regulation does not empower the authorities to shut down a madrasa merely because it is unrecognised,” the counsel said.
He further contended that the impugned order amounted to arbitrary administrative action, as it failed to cite any provision empowering the Minority Welfare Officer to order the shutdown of a madrasa solely on the grounds of non-recognition.
The state was represented during the hearing by Additional Chief Standing Counsel Devendra Mohan Shukla, while counsel for the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education was absent.
The court has sought responses from the state authorities and is expected to further examine whether executive actions taken against madrasas are consistent with the regulatory framework governing minority educational institutions.
The case adds to a growing list of legal challenges against administrative orders targeting madrasas in Uttar Pradesh, amid broader concerns over selective scrutiny and the conflation of recognition norms with closure powers.
Speaking to Maktoob, Sayyed Farooq Ahmad, counsel for the petitioner, said, “The law is very clear. Non-recognition of a madrasa only means it cannot receive government grants. There is no provision anywhere that allows the administration to order its closure merely because it is unrecognised.”
He added, “My client is not seeking any financial aid from the State. Despite this, the Minority Welfare Officer issued a closure order, which goes beyond the powers granted under the 2016 regulations.”
“What the administration has done is to treat non-recognition as a ground for shutting down an institution, which is legally unsustainable and arbitrary,” Advocate Ahmad said.
