The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, while making significant modifications to its provisions related to higher education. This ruling reverses a judgment by the Allahabad High Court, which had struck down the Act for violating the principle of secularism, a fundamental aspect of the Indian Constitution.
A Bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, held that the Act is consistent with the Constitution and does not violate its “basic structure.” The Court clarified that laws can only be invalidated if they infringe on fundamental rights or legislative competence, but cannot be struck down on the grounds of violating the basic structure of the Constitution. This key ruling paved the way for the Act’s continuation.
Key Features of the Ruling
The Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, enacted in 2004, was designed to regulate the functioning of madrasas (Islamic schools) in the state. The Act established the Madarsa Education Board under the Minority Welfare Department, with the goal of standardizing the educational curricula and ensuring better educational outcomes for students in these institutions.
The Court emphasized that the primary purpose of the Act is to protect the rights of minority communities in the state. By regulating madrasas, the Act aims to improve educational standards, ensuring that students are equipped with the skills necessary for earning a decent living. It was also noted that the Act does not interfere with the day-to-day functioning of madrasas but instead provides a framework for setting educational standards in these institutions.
The Court stressed that the Act is aligned with the state’s positive obligations under the Constitution, specifically in ensuring access to education for minorities. In this regard, the Court found that the Madarsa Education Act is in accordance with Article 21A of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to free and compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14 years.
Striking Down Provisions on Higher Education
However, the Court did strike down certain provisions of the Act that allowed the Madarsa Education Board to prescribe curricula, textbooks, and instructional material for higher education courses like the kamil (postgraduate) and fazil (junior research) programs. These provisions were deemed unconstitutional as they conflicted with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, which governs higher education across the country. The UGC Act restricts such functions to the central government, making the Madarsa Education Board’s involvement in higher education legally untenable.
The ruling clarified that while the state has the authority to regulate education in madrasas, it cannot extend this power to control postgraduate and research-level education, which falls under the jurisdiction of the central government.
The Background of the Case
The Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act had been challenged on several grounds. Petitioners argued that the Act violated the principle of secularism, which mandates that education in India should be free from religious bias. Additionally, it was claimed that the Act did not fulfill the requirements of the Right to Education Act (RTE) or Article 21A, which mandates universal, quality education for all children up to the age of 14.
The Allahabad High Court had struck down the Act in 2022, ruling that the creation of a religious education board for madrasas went against the secular nature of the state. The Court also found that the education provided in madrasas was not equivalent to the education provided by other state-recognized schools, which are subject to the secular and modern educational standards of the state.
Furthermore, the High Court argued that by empowering the Madarsa Education Board to regulate higher education, the state overstepped its constitutional bounds, infringing upon the central government’s authority in matters related to university-level education.
The Supreme Court’s Judgment
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s assessment, particularly in regard to the secularism argument. It clarified that the state has the power to regulate education in madrasas under its constitutional mandate to protect the rights of minority communities. The Court also noted that while the Act did not interfere with the overall educational structure of madrasas, it helped standardize the education system to make it more consistent with the state’s broader educational goals.
On the issue of higher education, the Court sided with the High Court in finding that the provisions related to kamil and fazil courses were unconstitutional due to their conflict with the UGC Act. This decision effectively limits the scope of the Madarsa Education Act, ensuring that it remains within the boundaries of the state’s legislative competence while respecting the central government’s role in regulating higher education.
Therefore,
The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act provides clarity on the role of the state in regulating religious educational institutions. While the Court upheld the Act’s validity and its role in safeguarding the rights of minority communities, it also placed limits on the state’s involvement in higher education, particularly in relation to postgraduate and research-level courses.
This decision is significant not only for its implications for madrasas in Uttar Pradesh but also for the broader debate on the role of religion in education and the state’s responsibility to ensure that all children, including those in religious institutions, receive a quality education. The ruling reinforces the importance of balancing minority rights with the constitutional principles of secularism and legislative competence.
