In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 on Tuesday. The Court overturned the earlier judgment by the Allahabad High Court that had invalidated the Act. However, the Court also ruled that the Act's provisions regulating higher education degrees, such as 'Fazil' and 'Kamil', conflict with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act and are therefore unconstitutional.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud along with Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, reviewed the March 22 decision by the Allahabad High Court, which had declared the Madarsa Act unconstitutional on multiple grounds.
The Court's ruling included the following conclusions:
-Standardization of Madarsa Education: The Madarsa Act establishes and regulates educational standards in state-recognized madarsas. This regulation ensures students attain the necessary skills to engage with society and earn a livelihood.
-Alignment with the Right to Education: Article 21A and the Right to Education Act should be harmonized with the rights of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and manage educational institutions. With state approval, the Madarsa Board can set regulations to guarantee secular education standards in madarsas without compromising their religious character.
-Legislative Competence: The Act falls within the purview of the state legislature under Entry 25 of List 3. However, its provisions concerning higher education degrees—specifically the regulation of 'Fazil' and 'Kamil' qualifications—contradict the UGC Act, which operates under Entry 66 of List 1, making this aspect of the Act unconstitutional.
The Court found that most of the Act's provisions serve the interests of the minority community, ensuring education quality through standardized curricula, examinations, and certification. The Act's intent is educational rather than exclusively religious, countering the High Court's earlier position that madrasa education violates Article 25(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Background
Various groups, including Anjum Kadari, Managers Association Madaris Arabiya (UP), and the All India Teachers Association Madaris Arabiya, filed petitions challenging the Madarsa Act. The petitioners argued that the High Court had misinterpreted the Act's purpose, emphasizing that it aims to establish regulations for Muslim children's education rather than primarily offering religious instruction.
In response, groups opposing the Act and the National Commission for Protection of Children's Rights (NCPCR) contended that madarsa education does not meet the quality standards guaranteed by Article 21A of the Constitution. They argued that while individuals have the freedom to pursue religious education, it should not replace mainstream education.
The Supreme Court had previously stayed the High Court's judgment, noting a prima facie misinterpretation of the Act.
Allahabad High Court's original decision
In its earlier ruling, a division bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Subhash Vidyarthi found the Act unconstitutional. It directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to develop a plan for integrating madarsa students into the formal education system. This decision came amidst the state government's recent efforts to survey Islamic educational institutions and investigate their foreign funding sources through a Special Investigation Team (SIT).
The High Court's decision stemmed from a petition filed by Anshuman Singh Rathore, who challenged the constitutionality of the UP Madarsa Board and questioned the involvement of the Minority Welfare Department in managing madarsas.
This Supreme Court ruling clarifies the scope of the Madarsa Education Act, reinforcing state regulation while protecting the right of minority groups to manage their educational institutions.