On Nov 5, the Supreme Court upheld the UP Madarsa Education Act, overturning the Allahabad HC’s ruling on secularism grounds but struck down provisions conflicting with the UGC Act, affirming minority education rights.
The Supreme Court of India has upheld the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, overturning a previous ruling by the Allahabad High Court that had invalidated the Act on the grounds of secularism. The Court ruled that the High Court had erred in striking down the Act without evidence that it violated any specific provisions related to fundamental rights or legislative competence. However, the Supreme Court found certain aspects of the Madarsa Act conflicted with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act in regulating higher education and struck down these provisions.
Background of the UP Madarsa Act Case
- The Allahabad High Court initially struck down the UP Madarsa Act on March 22, deeming it unconstitutional for allegedly infringing upon the principle of secularism.
- This High Court ruling mandated that the Uttar Pradesh Government integrate students from madrasas into the formal education system, based on concerns about the quality of education.
- Multiple petitioners, including the Managers Association Madaris Arabiya (UP) and the All India Teachers Association Madaris Arabiya (New Delhi), contested this judgment, arguing that the Act was misinterpreted as primarily religious in nature rather than educational.
Key Points from the Supreme Court's Judgment
- The Supreme Court underscored that a statute can only be struck down if it violates fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution or infringes upon legislative competence.
- The Court observed, “The constitutional validity of a statute cannot be challenged for violation of the basic structure of the Constitution. In a challenge to the statute for the violation of the principles of secularism, it must be shown that the statute violates provisions of the Constitution pertaining to secularism.”
- The bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, confirmed the Act’s validity but struck down provisions regarding higher education degrees (fazil and kamil), finding them in conflict with the UGC Act under Entry 66 of List I.
Supreme Court’s Findings and Rationale
- Educational Standards: The Court found the Madarsa Act’s goal of regulating madarsa education aligns with the State’s duty to ensure that madarsa students meet necessary academic standards for broader societal participation.
- Consistency with Article 21A and Right to Education Act: The Court clarified that the Act is consistent with Article 21A and the Right to Education Act, while still respecting the rights of religious minorities to administer their educational institutions.
- Minority Rights and Secular Education: The judgment affirmed that the Board, with State Government oversight, can enforce standards to ensure that recognized madarsas provide secular education alongside religious teachings without losing their minority character.
- Legislative Competence: The Court confirmed that the Madarsa Act is within the legislative power of the State Legislature, as it pertains to Entry 25 of List III (Concurrent List) dealing with education. The Act’s inclusion of religious education did not undermine the State’s competence.
Conflict with UGC Act Over Higher Education
- The Court ruled that certain provisions of the Madarsa Act related to higher education degrees, specifically fazil and kamil degrees, were unconstitutional as they conflicted with the UGC Act. The UGC Act governs standards for higher education under Entry 66 of List I (Union List), making the Madarsa Act’s provisions in this area legally invalid.
Protection of Minority Rights and Educational Standards
- The Court held that the Madarsa Act aids in enhancing educational quality, ensuring that madarsa students can pursue higher education while respecting their cultural and religious rights.
- Addressing the High Court’s concern about Article 21A (Right to Education), the Supreme Court stated that this right does not apply to minority educational institutions under Article 30, which protects religious and linguistic minorities' rights to establish and administer their institutions.
- The Court reiterated, “The right of a religious minority to establish and administer madarsas to impart religious and secular education is protected by Article 30.”
Implications of the Judgment
- The Supreme Court’s judgment solidifies the UP Madarsa Act’s role in regulating education within madarsas, enhancing the academic standards while respecting minority rights.
- By affirming the State’s legislative competence, the Court validated the regulation of secular education in religious institutions under certain parameters without infringing on minority rights.
What Was the High Court Decision?
- The Allahabad High Court, led by Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Subhash Vidyarthi, had previously ruled the Act unconstitutional, recommending a formal education system integration for madarsa students.
- The High Court’s ruling was based on the belief that the Madarsa Act’s provisions focused primarily on religious instruction, contrary to the secular education mandated by the Constitution.
Legal Representation
- Petitioners: Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Mr. P. Chidambaram, Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Mr. Salman Khurshid, and Mr. MR Shamshad.
- State of UP: Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj.
- NCPCR: Senior Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi.
- Intervenors Opposing the Act: Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan.
Case Title: Anjum Kadari and another v. Union of India and others Diary No. 14432-2024, Managers Association Madaris Arabiya UP v. Union of India SLP(C) No. 7821/2024 and connected matters.
Attachment:
