 "SC upholds UP Madarsa Act but terms degree provision 'unconstitutional'")
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, November 5, upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004, overturning a previous ruling by the Allahabad High Court, which had deemed it "unconstitutional".
While upholding the Act, the court identified that certain provisions related to higher education degrees—specifically the 'fazil' and 'kamil' degrees—conflicted with the University Grants Commission Act. Consequently, those specific provisions were ruled "unconstitutional".
UP Madarsa Act: Case background
The Supreme Court's ruling responds to a petition challenging the Allahabad High Court's judgment delivered on March 22, which struck down the UP Madarsa Education Act on the grounds that it violated the principle of secularism. The High Court had also mandated that the Uttar Pradesh government create a scheme to integrate students from madrasas into the formal education system, reflecting concerns about the quality of education provided.
The case was brought by several petitioners, including the Managers Association Madaris Arabiya and the All India Teachers Association Madaris Arabiya, who argued that the High Court had misinterpreted the Act as primarily aimed at religious instruction rather than as a framework for the education of Muslim children.
UP Madarsa Act: Supreme Court observations
More From This Section
Constitutional validity: The Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, concluded that the Madarsa Act effectively regulates the standards of education in recognised madrasas. The court noted that this regulation aligns with the state’s obligation to ensure that students achieve a level of competency to participate actively in society.
Balance between minority rights and quality education: The Supreme Court also emphasised the importance of balancing the rights of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and manage educational institutions with the need for quality education. It acknowledged that while madrasas offer religious education, they primarily serve educational purposes and should not compromise the quality of learning.
Legislative competence: The Supreme Court affirmed that the Madarsa Act falls within the legislative competence of the State Legislature, specifically under Entry 25 of List 3 of the Constitution. The court underscored that laws regulating educational institutions affiliated with a religious community do not inherently violate secularism.
The Supreme Court’s decision highlights several critical implications for madrasa education and minority rights:
Regulation of education standards: The ruling reinforces the state’s authority to regulate education standards in madrasas, ensuring that they provide quality education alongside religious teachings.
Protection of minority rights: By upholding the Act, the court has reinforced the right of religious minorities to establish educational institutions, provided they adhere to certain educational standards aligned with secular principles.
Quality education assurance: The judgment serves as a reminder that the state has a duty to ensure that all children receive a quality education, which is a fundamental right under Article 21A of the Constitution.
Focus on inclusivity: The court’s directive to ensure that madrasa students can access quality education supports the integration of madrasa education within the broader educational framework of the state.
What was the Allahabad High Court ruling?
On March 22, 2024, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004 unconstitutional, on the grounds that it violates the principle of secularism.
In its decision, the bench labelled the Act as ultra vires and instructed the Uttar Pradesh government to develop a framework to integrate students currently enrolled in madrasas into the mainstream education system.
This ruling followed a series of actions by the state government, which had initiated a survey of Islamic educational institutions in Uttar Pradesh and established a Special Investigation Team in October 2023 to examine the financial sources of madrasas from abroad.
The High Court's ruling originated from a writ petition filed by Anshuman Singh Rathore, challenging the constitutional validity of the UP Madarsa Board and raising concerns regarding the management of madrasas by the Minority Welfare Department, both at the state and union levels, among other related matters.