Supreme Court upholds Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Act while striking down provisions on higher education

Representational Pic

The Supreme Court of India has upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act of 2004, setting aside a previous ruling by the Allahabad High Court that had declared the Act unconstitutional. The verdict was delivered by a bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

While affirming the Act's validity, the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in the context of its regulation of higher education, specifically concerning degrees such as 'Fazil' and 'Kamil'. These degrees were found to be in conflict with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act. The Madarsa Act itself aims to regulate the standards of education within madrasas in the state of Uttar Pradesh.

The Supreme Court articulated that the right of minorities to administer educational institutions is not absolute and that the state has the authority to regulate educational standards within these institutions. This ruling came in response to pleas challenging the earlier judgement of the Allahabad High Court, which had struck down the Act for allegedly violating the principles of secularism, a key aspect of the Constitution's basic structure.

The apex court explained that a law may be invalidated for violating fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution or on grounds of legislative competence, but not for infringing upon the basic structure itself. The court emphasised that the legislative purpose of the Madrasa Act is to standardise educational levels prescribed in madrasas, ensuring that these institutions do not interfere with their daily operations while safeguarding minority rights.

During the hearing, the court described India as a "melting pot of cultures, civilisations, and religions," emphasising the importance of preserving this diversity. The bench also noted that such religious educational institutions are not exclusive to the Muslim community; similar provisions exist for other religions as well.

The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) had argued that the education offered in madrasas is not comprehensive enough, thus contravening the Right to Education Act of 2009. In response, the Uttar Pradesh government expressed support for the legislation but acknowledged the Supreme Court's ruling.

The appeal to the Supreme Court was filed by several parties, including the Managers Association Madaris Arabiya (UP) and the All India Teachers Association Madaris Arabiya (New Delhi), contesting the High Court's decision. The Allahabad High Court had previously mandated that steps be taken to accommodate madrasa students in other educational institutions in Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court's ruling marks a significant moment in the ongoing discourse around education and minority rights in India.

(With inputs from ANI)