On 7 June 2026, at Uttarkanya, Siliguri, West Bengal authorities directed law enforcement and district administrations to intensify monitoring of unrecognised madrasas across the state. Public statements by Agnimitra Paul urged a firm, data-led approach focused on legal compliance, child safeguarding, and transparent institutional practices. The directive, as reported from the state’s North Bengal secretariat wing, emphasizes due process, neutrality, and the prevention of educational disruption for students.

The scope is specific: institutions operating outside statutory recognition frameworks—often referred to locally as “Khariji” madrasas—are to be mapped, audited, and either brought into conformity or transitioned in line with the law. Recognised and board-affiliated madrasas are not the target of this action; the initiative is aimed at any unrecognised schooling arrangement, irrespective of religious affiliation, to uphold uniform standards for children’s learning and safety.

The rationale integrates three public-policy imperatives: child protection, educational quality, and community trust. Parents in districts such as Malda, Murshidabad, and North 24 Parganas frequently express a simple, relatable expectation—children should learn in safe, accountable environments where teachers are vetted, infrastructure is sound, and progression to higher studies is seamless. The state’s message pairs that expectation with clear legal pathways to regularise teaching institutions without stigmatising communities.

The legal basis is well established. Under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), Sections 18–19 prohibit the operation of unrecognised schools and prescribe norms for recognition. The West Bengal Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules operationalise these requirements statewide. In parallel, the West Bengal Board of Madrasah Education Act, 1994 provides recognition and curriculum pathways for madrasas seeking formal affiliation. Compliance with the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, and basic safety codes (including fire, building, and health standards) applies to all institutions hosting minors.

Policy clarity also requires conceptual precision. Recognised madrasas in West Bengal typically align with board curricula (for example, Aliya streams) and are subject to state audits. The current monitoring drive addresses those outside any recognition framework (“Khariji” in some local usage), where gaps may exist in teacher credentialing, curricula, or safety protocols. The objective is regulatory regularisation, not religious interference.

A practical oversight architecture can be framed as six mutually reinforcing pillars: (1) geotagged mapping and time-bound registration, (2) child-safeguarding and welfare, (3) curriculum equivalence and learning outcomes, (4) teacher verification and professional development, (5) infrastructure and safety compliance, and (6) financial transparency with proportionate audits. Together, these pillars reduce risk while preserving institutional autonomy within constitutional bounds.

Pillar 1—Mapping and Registration: District Education Officers, with local police support where necessary, should complete a geotagged census of unrecognised institutions, assign unique institution IDs, and publish a time-bound recognition calendar. A single-window online portal can streamline applications, document uploads, and inspection scheduling, reducing compliance friction for management committees.

Pillar 2—Child Safeguarding: All institutions must designate Child Protection Officers, display child helplines, and adopt POCSO-compliant protocols for prevention, reporting, and redress. Residential facilities (if any) should be registered under applicable hostels and child-welfare norms, permit surprise inspections, and implement age-appropriate health, hygiene, and nutrition standards. National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) advisories on children in religious or residential settings offer useful checklists for routine audits.

Pillar 3—Curriculum Equivalence: To secure age-grade parity with mainstream education, institutions should align core subjects (language, mathematics, science, social science) to state syllabi while continuing religious or values components as permissible. Bridge courses and recognition of prior learning can help students transition smoothly into recognised streams and public examinations without losing academic years.

Pillar 4—Teacher Verification and Capacity Building: Background verification must be rights-respecting and evidence-based, focused on credentials and suitability to teach minors. Simultaneously, access to teacher training and certification pathways (including state DIETs and open universities) enables upskilling rather than displacement. Professional development is integral to sustained quality improvements.

Pillar 5—Infrastructure and Safety: Minimum standards include safe classrooms, sanitation segregated by gender, potable water, adequate lighting and ventilation, and basic fire-safety equipment with evacuation drills. For older premises, phased compliance plans—with interim risk mitigation—balance safety with financial reality, ensuring no abrupt closures that would jeopardise children’s schooling.

Pillar 6—Financial Transparency: Simple, proportionate audits can verify fee structures, scholarships, and donations without creating excessive overheads. Where foreign funding is involved, adherence to FCRA norms is essential. Financial clarity protects donors, management committees, and families alike, and helps authorities separate routine operations from potential misuse.

Data governance underpins the entire effort. A privacy-by-design MIS (management information system) should store only necessary data, restrict access on a need-to-know basis, and log all queries for accountability. Aggregated dashboards—rather than personally identifiable records—are sufficient for policy steering at district and state levels.

Constitutional safeguards remain paramount. Articles 25–30 of the Constitution protect freedom of religion and the rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Courts have consistently held that reasonable regulation for standards, safety, and teacher qualifications is permissible so long as it does not amount to control over core administrative or religious matters. The present monitoring thrust must therefore remain regulatory, child-centred, and non-discriminatory.

Community engagement is the social backbone of compliance. Constructive dialogue with management committees, imams, parents’ associations, and civil-society groups—including dharmic stakeholders from Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, and Sikh traditions—helps build shared confidence that children’s rights come first. Parents commonly report that respectful consultations in Bengali and Urdu, clear timelines, and transparent inspection notes reduce anxiety and rumours.

An implementation roadmap can be staged and humane. A 90-day state-wide mapping window identifies unrecognised sites; a 180-day regularisation path then guides institutions through inspections and remedial steps. The principle of “no closure without safe transition” should be explicit: where recognition is not feasible, district administrations should arrange bridge admissions in nearby recognised schools and provide transport or hostel alternatives, ensuring zero learning loss.

Accountability and redress mechanisms must be visible. A toll-free helpline and district grievance cells can assist parents and teachers; inspection orders and outcomes should be publicly posted; and an independent oversight committee—including child-rights experts and educationists—can audit a sample of decisions quarterly. Where credible security concerns arise, responses should be intelligence-led, proportionate, and coordinated with specialised agencies only as legally warranted.

Measuring success requires clear indicators: percentage of institutions recognised within timelines; improvements in sanitation and safety compliance; verified teacher qualifications; enrolment and retention trends; and student performance in standardised assessments. Independent third-party evaluations after 12–18 months can validate progress and recommend course corrections.

Beyond statutes and scorecards, the human dimension matters most. Families across districts—regardless of faith—seek the same outcomes: safe classrooms, qualified teachers, credible certificates, and pathways to college and livelihoods. When oversight is framed and executed around these shared aspirations, it strengthens social cohesion and underscores a simple civic truth: safeguarding children is a unifying value.

In sum, West Bengal’s decision to monitor unrecognised madrasas, coupled with Agnimitra Paul’s call for strict and transparent enforcement, can deliver tangible gains if it remains child-centric, constitutionally grounded, and consultative. By aligning regulation with respect for plural traditions and parental hopes, the state can enhance educational quality, protect minors, and reinforce public trust—all without compromising rights or dignity.

---

Inspired by this post on Struggle for Hindu Existence.

---