SC rules in favour of UP Madarsa Act, rejects Allahabad HC's judgment

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, on Tuesday, 5 November, upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrassa Education Act, 2004, overturning the Allahabad High Court's earlier judgment which had declared it unconstitutional.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra heard the appeal against the Allahabad High Court's 22 March ruling, which had struck down the Act on the grounds that it violated the secular principles enshrined in the Constitution.

However, the Court ruled that certain provisions of the Madrassa Act—specifically those regulating higher education degrees kamil (postgraduate) and fazil (junior research programme)—conflicted with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act and, as such, were unconstitutional.

The Court clarified that laws can only be invalidated for violations of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution or for lack of legislative competence, but not for breaching the basic structure.

The Supreme Court stated, “A statute can only be struck down for violating Part III or legislative competence, not for violating the basic structure. The High Court erred in holding that the statute had to be struck down for breaching the basic structure.”

The Uttar Pradesh government informed the Supreme Court Bench that it viewed the law as constitutional. It argued that the entire Act should not have been invalidated, and that only the specific offending provisions warranted scrutiny.

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) had remarked, “The state has a legitimate interest in ensuring standards in places of religious instruction. You may interpret it that way, but to strike down the entire Act is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”

Key Findings of the Judgment:

1. The Madrassa Act regulates educational standards in madrassas recognised by the Board.

2. The Act aligns with the state's positive obligation to ensure that students in recognised madrassas gain the necessary skills to contribute to society and secure employment. It is within the legislative competence of the state.

3. Article 21A and the Right to Education Act must be interpreted in a way that allows religious and linguistic minority institutions to provide education. The Board, with state approval, can establish regulations to ensure that minority institutions provide secular education to the required standards while preserving their religious identity.

4. The Madrassa Act is within the legislative competence of the Uttar Pradesh State Legislature, under Entry 25 of List 3. However, provisions related to regulating higher education degrees such as fazil and kamil are unconstitutional, as they conflict with the UGC Act, which falls under Entry 66 of List 1.

The Court held that the provisions of the Madrassa Act were reasonable, as they aimed to regulate education standards, conduct exams, and confer certificates that enabled students to pursue further education. The objective of the Act is to protect the rights of minorities, in keeping with the State's obligations.

“The legislative framework of the Act is designed to standardise educational levels in madrassas. It does not interfere with the day-to-day functioning of madrassas. The Act serves to protect minority rights in Uttar Pradesh and is consistent with the State's duty to ensure students can graduate and earn a decent living,” the Court ruled.

History of the Case:

The Allahabad High Court had declared the Uttar Pradesh Madrassa Education Act, 2004, ultra vires (unconstitutional), ruling that the Uttar Pradesh Government should devise a scheme to integrate madrassa students into the formal education system. This decision followed a state-wide survey of madrassas and the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to examine foreign funding for madrassas.

The case arose from a writ petition filed by Anshuman Singh Rathore, who challenged the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Madrassa Board and raised concerns about its management by the Minority Welfare Department, among other related issues.

The Act was contested on the grounds that it violated the principle of secularism and failed to provide quality, compulsory education up to the age of 14 (or Class VIII), as mandated by Article 21A of the Constitution. It was further argued that the Act did not ensure universal and quality education for all children in madrassas, thereby infringing upon Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Allahabad High Court agreed with the petitioners, ruling that while the State had the authority to regulate education at the school level, such education must be secular in nature.

The Court stated, “The State has no power to create a Board for religious education or to establish a Board specifically for a particular religion. Any such action violates the principles of secularism, which are fundamental to the Constitution of India. It also infringes upon Article 14, which guarantees equal treatment by the State.”

Additionally, the High Court found that the education provided under the Madrassa Act was not equivalent to the education offered by other State-recognised schools and thus did not meet the standards of “quality” or “universal” education. The Court argued that while students of other religions receive modern education, denying madrassa students the same opportunities violated both Article 21A and Article 21 of the Constitution.

Regarding higher education, the High Court held that the regulation of higher education was a matter reserved for the Central Government, and the State had no authority to legislate in this area. The Madrassa Act, however, conferred powers upon the Madrassa Board to prescribe curricula and textbooks for courses such as alim (undergraduate), kamil (postgraduate), and fazil (junior research programme).

During the hearings, petitioners argued that the High Court had misinterpreted the purpose of the Act, which was not intended to provide religious instruction but rather to regulate the educational framework for Muslim children. Opponents, including the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), contended that madrassa education undermined the promise of quality education guaranteed under Article 21A.

In April, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s judgment declaring the Act unconstitutional, observing that the High Court had misunderstood the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Madrassa Act. Madrassas (or madarsas) are institutions where students pursue Islamic studies alongside other academic disciplines.

The Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrassa Education Act, 2004, defined madrassa education as encompassing subjects such as Arabic, Urdu, Persian, Islamic studies, philosophy, and other areas specified by the Uttar Pradesh Madrassa Education Board. The Act aimed to empower the Board to oversee the functioning of madrassas in the state.