 "Supreme Court (Photo: Wikipedia)")
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a Allahabad High Court ruling, which had deemed the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, as “unconstitutional”.
While staying the order, the apex court called it an infringement on the principles of secularism and the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, according to media reports.
The SC bench, comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, deemed the High Court’s directive to integrate Madarsa students into regular schools as unnecessary. The top court set the final hearing for the second week of July. Till then, the High Court’s judgement and March 22 order would remain suspended, it added.
Uttar Pradesh has over 16,000 state-recognized madrasas.
Represented by an association of madarsa teachers, the petitioners argued that the ruling adversely affected the lives of numerous students.
The Bench, which also included Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, scrutinised the provisions of the Act and said, “they abundantly make it clear that the object and purpose of the statutory board which is constituted under the Act is regulatory in nature.”
More From This Section
Referencing Article 28(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits religious instruction in institutions funded by the state, the Court cited a 2002 judgement clarifying the term “religious instruction.”
The Supreme Court observed that if the aim of the PIL was to ensure the provision of secular education alongside religious teachings in madrasas, striking down the 2004 Act wouldn't be the solution. Instead, the court suggested issuing appropriate directives to ensure that students in these institutions receive a quality education comparable to that in other state-funded institutions.
What is UP’s Madarsa Education Act, 2004?
To streamline the madrasa education across the state, the government enacted the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004. The Act concerns the operation and regulation of madrasas in the state. It outlines the structure, curriculum, accreditation process, and other regulations pertaining to madrasas within the state. It is intended to provide a legal framework for the functioning of madrasas, ensuring quality education while adhering to constitutional principles such as secularism and fundamental rights.
The law outlined madrasa education as instruction encompassing Arabic, Urdu, Persian, Islamic studies, traditional medicine (Tibb), philosophy, and other designated fields.
Under the Madrasa Act, the Board of Madrasa Education included a chairperson, director, and principal from the state-operated Oriental College in Rampur.
Why did the Allahabad High court strike it down?
On March 22, the Allahabad High Court had deemed the Uttar Pradesh Madarsa Education Act, 2004 unconstitutional, asserting that it violated principles of secularism. The High Court maintained that the state lacked authority to establish a board solely for religious education.
The Act was declared unconstitutional by the High Court primarily due to two reasons.
Firstly, the High Court noted that it contravened the principle of secularism by showing bias towards Islam, as contended by the petitioner, who argued that the Madrassa Act exclusively promotes Islamic education, teachings, and doctrines.
Secondly, the High Court's ruling recognised the petitioner's assertion that the board's power to grant degrees infringes upon the jurisdiction of the University Grants Commission (UGC).
