SC upholds UP madarsa Act, strikes down provisions on higher degrees

Contact Counsellor

CategoryPolity

Last Updated07/11/2024

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004, except for its provisions allowing the Board to award higher degrees like Fazil and Kamil.

On November 5, 2024, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004, with the exception of its provisions allowing the Madrasa Board to grant higher degrees like Fazil and Kamil, which were found to conflict with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, 1956.

Legislative Competence on Higher Degrees: The Supreme Court declared that the Madrasa Board's authority to award higher degrees infringes upon the UGC Act, which governs standards for higher education across India. The court ruled that the state legislature lacks competence to regulate higher education in conflict with the UGC Act.
Overturning Allahabad High Court's Judgment: A three-judge Supreme Court Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud set aside the March 22 decision by the Allahabad High Court, which had struck down the Madrasa Act as unconstitutional.

Ensuring Educational Standards in Madrasas: The Supreme Court emphasized that the Madrasa Act’s primary role is to regulate and maintain a standard of secular education within recognized madrasas. This aligns with the state's responsibility to ensure students achieve competencies to participate in society and pursue livelihoods.
Right to Education and Minority Rights: The court clarified that Article 21A (Right to Education) and the Right to Education (RTE) Act must be balanced with Article 30, which protects the rights of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and manage educational institutions.

Secularism and Religious Tolerance: The court noted that the state's practice of religious tolerance is a vital aspect of secularism. While the state can regulate secular aspects of religious practices, it must treat both majority and minority institutions equally under the Constitution.
Limits on Striking Down Statutes for Secularism Violations: The Supreme Court underscored that a law can only be invalidated if it directly contravenes a specific part of the Constitution or exceeds legislative competence.

State’s Right to Regulate Educational Standards: The Supreme Court affirmed that the state has the right to impose regulations on minority institutions to maintain educational standards, particularly as a condition for receiving state aid or recognition.
Balance Between Standards and Minority Rights: The court recognized that while minority rights to administer educational institutions are protected, these rights are not absolute. The state can regulate aspects like curriculum, teacher qualifications, and facility standards to ensure quality education without infringing on the minority character of these institutions.

Improving Academic Excellence: The Madrasa Act’s provisions aim to enhance the academic competency of students in recognized madrasas, allowing them to take standardized board exams and pursue further education. This aligns with the state’s obligation to support students in acquiring a foundational level of education.
Protection of Minority Rights: The Act respects the rights of religious minorities by allowing them to offer religious instruction alongside secular education, as guaranteed by Article 30. However, students cannot be compelled to participate in religious teachings without consent, as per Article 28(3).

Entry 25 of List 3 (Concurrent List): The court noted that "education" in the Concurrent List includes related subjects, even if religious teachings are involved. Therefore, state legislation on education that encompasses some religious instruction remains within legislative competence.