E-Paper
SC upholds UP madrasa law, underlines state’s interest in ensuring standards
The court held that the 2004 statute does not empower madrasas to hand out degrees of higher education, including graduation and post-graduation
Prefer HTon Google
The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside the Allahabad high court’s March judgment that declared the 2004 Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act unconstitutional even as it underlined the state’s vital role in ensuring that educational standards in recognised madrasas align with modern academic expectations without infringing on the religious rights of the minority community.
Simultaneously, the top court held that the 2004 statute does not empower madrasas to hand out degrees of higher education, including graduation and post-graduation, and any regulations framed in this regard are held unconstitutional.
The ruling, delivered by a bench led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, highlighted the balance between the state interest in promoting quality education and the protection of minority rights, stating that such regulation must aim to support rather than dismantle the madrasa system. It noted that the 2004 law is a regulatory law that ought to be construed in consonance with the provisions of Article 21A, which enshrines the constitutional right to education.
The bench, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, held that the Act is not only legitimate but also essential for preserving state oversight of madrasas, while also safeguarding the rights of religious minorities under Article 30 of the Constitution to manage their own educational institutions.
It added that the high court erred in ruling that the 2004 law was violative of the principles of secularism, noting that a law cannot be declared illegal because of alleged violations of the basic structure of the Constitution.
The court’s judgment came in response to multiple appeals against the Allahabad high court’s March ruling, which invalidated the 2004 Act on grounds that it violated secular principles by promoting religious education at the expense of general academic subjects.
Additionally, a series of directives from the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) aimed to transfer madrasa students into government schools prompted concerns about the preservation of minority rights under Article 30 of the Constitution, which guarantees religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions.
The petitioners, represented by senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Salman Khurshid, Menaka Guruswamy and MR Shamshad, argued that madrasas play an integral role in India’s religious and educational diversity and that they adhere to certain the state-mandated curriculum standards. They also emphasised the broader implications of the high court’s decision, which they contended unfairly targeted religious institutions and eroded Article 30 rights for minorities.
Representing the Uttar Pradesh government, additional solicitor general KM Nataraj, maintained that the Act should be partially, not wholly, struck down. He argued that the high court could have limited its decision to specific provisions instead of invalidating the entire framework.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court underscored the state’s responsibility to ensure that all children, including those attending religious institutions, receive quality education that prepares them for modern life. Rather than dismantling the madrasa framework, the bench asserted that the 2004 Act allows the State to support madrasas in achieving educational standards that benefit their students.
Regarding the graduation (kamil) and post-graduation degrees (fazil), the top court held that madrasas cannot grant such degrees because that is violative of the mandate of the UGC Act.
