|
|
|
| August 30, 2005 | Tuesday | Rajab 24, 1426 |
Detailed SC judgment on sanad issue
LAHORE, Aug 29: The Supreme Court has observed that religious educational institutions in the country are being managed and run by the private sector without a statutory sanction and without affiliation with a recognized university or educational board.
In a judgment, released to the press here on Monday, the court said that ‘madrissahs’ are not teaching their students even a single subject of general education which could enable them to join the mainstream of society and compete with the educated class for employment or any other purpose.
The apex court has earlier directed the Election Commission to withhold notifications of all those nazims and naib nazims who have contested the local election on the basis of ‘sanads’ issued by religious schools not recognized by the government.
The five-page judgment gives details of the reasons why a full bench of the apex court dismissed on Aug 16 five civil petitions for leave to appeal moved by those who possessed sanads issued by private religious institutions and were aspiring to contest as nazims and naib nazims for different union councils across the Punjab.
Comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Justice Sardar Mohammad Raza and Justice Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, the bench observed that not a single religious educational institution had taken measures to include in their curriculum the subjects of English, Urdu and Pakistan Studies although the Inter-Board Committee of Chairmen (IBCC) had recommended such step with the objective that their certificates were utilized for any ‘useful’ purpose.
As a result, the apex court further observed that the certificates and degrees being issued by the seminaries could at best be used for teaching at the same madrissahs or higher studies in the same field of learning.
The court held that only the Higher Education Commission was competent to issue equivalence degrees in respect of the Shahadatul Aalmia Fil Uloomil Arabia Wal Islamia and the Sahadatul Aalia on a par with MA and BA, respectively. Similarly, the IBCC alone was competent to issue equivalence certificates in respect of the Shadatus Sanvia Khasa as higher secondary and the Shadatus Sanvia Aama as secondary school.
The court was also informed by additional advocate-general Muhammad Hanif Khatana that the Wafaqul Madaras Arabia, Multan, the Tanzeemul Madaras (Ahale Sunnat), the Wafaqul Madaras (Shia) and the Rabitatul Madaras Islamia in Lahore and the Wafaqul Madaras (Ahale Hadith), Faisalabad, were the boards and organizations which were recognized by the government. In the private sector, he submitted, the Jamia Islamia Minhajul Quran, the Jamia Ashrafia and the Jamia Taleemul Islamia in Lahore, the Darul Uloom Mohammadia Ghausia, Sargodha and the Darul Uloom Islamia, Binnori Town, Karachi, were recognized and affiliated institutions and were competent to issue their degrees and certificates.
In all the petition for leave to appeal, the common point of law involved was that the returning officers and the district returning officers had rejected their nomination papers on the ground that they were not holding academic qualification sufficient to contest as nazim or naib nazim. They moved the Lahore High Court which dismissed their writ petitions on the basis that they had not produced equivalence certificate issued by a competent authority (the IBCC). The SC judgment also mentioned the decision taken on the contrary by the high courts of Peshawar and Balochistan.
The judgment said even in November 1982, the University Grants Commission (now the Higher Education Commission) had decided that although the Aalmia and the Aala degrees were equivalent to MA Arabic and Islamic Studies and BA, the holders of the degrees were recognized only for the purpose of teaching at universities and colleges and for higher education only in Arabic and Islamic Studies. The degree was not useful for any other purpose like employment for which they would have to pass two additional subjects — the Pakistan Studies and Islamic studies — at BA level. In a subsequent notification, the UGC laid down the criteria of passing two additional subjects for the purpose of issuing the equivalence degree.
The judgment said that the Supreme Court had been dealing with the same matter and its decisions had been in accordance with the UGC notification. It cited the case of Maulana Abdullh Vs the Returning Officer as reported in 2003 SCMR 195 that the degree (MA) was only useful for teaching purpose. It said that section 10 of the HEC Ordinance of 2002 saved the functions of the UGC as were vested in the HEC. As such, there was no difference with the decision taken by the UGC and later by the HEC.
The judgment said that the decision of dismissing all the five petitions for leave to appeal was in the light of the same decisions as the petitioners were unable to produce equivalence certificates to establish that they held the academic qualification necessary to contest as nazim or naib nazim. The petitioners thus failed to satisfy the requirement as stipulated by section 152(1)(e) of the Local Government Ordinance, 2001.
As for the contention that the ECP had, through a notification on July 29, 2002, allowed the holders of seminaries’ degrees to contest election to the national and provincial assemblies, the court observed that the plea did not hold the legal ground because the notification was not under consideration in the local government election matters and also because the qualification for contesting election to parliament and provincial legislatures was different from that of the nazims and naib nazims, the judgment added.
|
|
|
|
