Supreme Court upholds constitutional validity of UP Madarsa Act, sets aside Allahabad HC order

The Supreme Court ruling on the Uttar Pradesh Madarsa Law highlights that the Madarsa Act establishes the legal structure for educating in madarsas, combining the NCERT curriculum with religious teachings.

Back in March, the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 (Madarsa Act) was deemed unconstitutional by the Allahabad High Court due to its infringement of secularism principles. (Source: Express Archives)

The recent ruling by the Supreme Court regarding the Madrasa Law pertains to the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004. The Court affirmed the Act’s constitutionality while invalidating specific provisions permitting the Board to grant advanced degrees such as Fazil and Kamil.

According to the court ruling, granting advanced degrees was deemed illegal due to its violation of the regulations set forth in the University Grants Commission Act of 1956.

The Act’s constitutionality was overturned by a Supreme Court three-judge panel headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, nullifying the Allahabad High Court’s March 22 decision.

The Madrasa Act governs the education quality in Madrasas approved by the Board for providing Madrasa education…. aligns with the state’s duty to guarantee that students enrolled in recognized Madrasas acquire the necessary skills to engage in society and sustain themselves financially,” stated the Chief Justice of India as he pronounced the judgment, emphasizing that Article 21A of the Constitution and the Right to Education (RTE) Act must be interpreted in harmony with the rights of religious and linguistic minorities to run educational institutions based on their preferences.

[New Version]: Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, along with the bench, emphasized that although “the Madrasa Act falls under the jurisdiction of the state legislature,” the part of the Act “that attempts to oversee advanced education, such as the Fazil and Kamil degrees, exceeds the state legislature’s authority as it contradicts section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act… The UGC Act establishes the guidelines for higher education, and the state law cannot attempt to govern higher education in opposition to the UGC Act.

The Court emphasized that the Board, with the state government’s approval, has the authority to establish regulations that guarantee religious minority institutions provide high-quality secular education without compromising their minority identity.

The Act was deemed unconstitutional by the High Court for infringing upon the principles of secularism, a fundamental aspect of the constitution’s basic framework.

The Supreme Court bench clarified that a statute can only be invalidated for infringing on Part 3 or any other provision of the constitution, or for lacking legislative competence. It emphasized that the constitutional validity of a statute cannot be contested for breaching the basic structure of the constitution. The court acknowledged that questioning the constitutional validity of a statute due to basic structure violation is a technical matter, requiring tracing the transgression back to the explicit constitution provisions. Therefore, in challenging a statute’s validity for flouting the principle of secularism, it must be proven that the statute contravenes constitutional provisions on secularism. The court criticized the High Court’s decision, stating it was incorrect to assume that a statute must be invalidated if it violates the basic structure.

The court emphasized that while minorities have the right to manage educational institutions, it is not an absolute right. The state is justified in regulating minority educational institutions to uphold educational standards, especially when providing aid or recognition. The constitution enables the state to harmonize the goals of maintaining excellence in minority education institutions and safeguarding the minority’s freedom to establish and oversee their educational establishments.

The statement included that the government has the authority to oversee various elements of educational standards, including curriculum, teacher qualifications and hiring, student health and hygiene, and library resources.

The Supreme Court highlighted the Madrasa Act’s provisions as justified, as they serve the purpose of enhancing the educational quality of students in recognized Madrasas, enabling them to qualify for board exams. This legislation safeguards the interests of the minority community in Uttar Pradesh by overseeing the educational standards in recognized madrassas and facilitating exams that grant students certificates for further academic pursuits. Aligned with the state’s responsibility to guarantee a basic level of competency for Madrasa students, the Act equips them to engage in society and secure livelihoods effectively.

The court’s decision highlighted that the High Court made a mistake by concluding that the education offered under the Madrasa Act contradicts Article 21A of the Constitution. This is because the Right to Education Act, which enables the realization of the fundamental right under Article 21A, includes a provision specifically stating that it does not extend to minority educational institutions.

According to the statement, Article 30 safeguards the ability of religious minorities to organize and manage educational institutions that offer both religious and non-religious teachings. Additionally, the Board and the state government possess ample regulatory authority to set and oversee educational standards in Madrasas.

According to the court, Madrasas may influence religious teaching, but their main focus is on providing education.

It was emphasized that the interpretation of “entry 25 of list 3 (concurrent list)” concerning education should be broad enough to encompass all related subjects falling under the category. Merely including religious teachings or instructions in the education system does not automatically make the legislation beyond the state’s legislative jurisdiction. The constitution’s Article 28(3) safeguards individuals attending state-recognized educational institutions or those funded by state resources from being forced to partake in religious teachings or practices without their consent. Hence, while religious education can be part of a state-recognized or state-aided educational institution, no student can be coerced to engage in such teachings. Construing entry 25 of list 3 in the manner suggested by the respondent would essentially exclude all regulations pertaining to minority-run institutions that may offer religious education.

According to Article 28(3) of the constitution, individuals attending state-recognized educational institutions or receiving state-funded assistance cannot be forced to participate in religious activities without their consent. This implies that while religious instruction can be offered in such institutions, students cannot be obligated to partake in it. If the respondent’s interpretation of entry 25 of list 3 is adopted, it would essentially nullify its applicability to any legislation concerning minority-run institutions that offer religious education.