2 weeks Ago
New Delhi, Nov 5: The Supreme Court of India has upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrassa Education Act, 2004, a law designed to administer madrasas under the purview of the Minority Welfare Department in Uttar Pradesh as reported by Bar and Bench. This decision reverses a prior ruling by the Allahabad High Court, which had invalidated the Act, arguing that it infringed upon secular principles embedded in the basic structure of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that a statute can only be struck down if it violates fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution or exceeds legislative authority, but not for infringing on the basic structure itself, reports Bar and Bench, The bench, comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasized that the Act’s purpose aligns with the State’s duty to protect minority rights.
“The legislative scheme for the Act is to standardise the level of education in madrasas. The Act does not interfere with the day-to-day operations of these institutions; rather, it ensures that students can acquire an education enabling them to earn a decent living,” the Court stated. However, the Supreme Court invalidated provisions empowering the Madrassa Board to prescribe curricula and textbooks for higher education (postgraduate and research levels), deeming this authority to conflict with the University Grants Commission Act (UGC Act), a Central law.
Key Points of the Supreme Court Ruling as summarised by Bar and Bench are: The Madrassa Act aims to regulate and enhance educational standards in madrasas without encroaching on their religious teachings. The Act aligns with the State’s obligation to ensure that students in minority institutions can achieve an education supporting livelihood. The Court acknowledged the need to harmonise Article 21A (right to education) and the Right to Education Act with the rights of religious and linguistic minority institutions.
The Act falls within the legislative competence of the State, as per the Constitution. Provisions on advanced educational courses (fazil and kamil) were found to conflict with the UGC Act, necessitating their removal. The case stems from the Allahabad High Court’s ruling, which deemed the Act unconstitutional.
According to the High Court, while the State can legislate on education, it cannot create a board solely for a specific religious education, arguing that such an approach breaches secularism and Article 14’s guarantee of equality. Additionally, the court questioned the educational equivalence and quality provided under the Act compared to other State-recognised institutions, asserting that it potentially contravened the universal education mandate of Article 21A. The petitioners contended that the Act inadequately served students by failing to offer a modern, universal education standard, thus violating fundamental rights.
The High Court had also argued that provisions regarding higher education fell under the Union’s jurisdiction, as specified in the Constitution, and therefore exceeded the State’s legislative powers. The matter was then escalated to the Supreme Court. Several prominent legal experts appeared before the Supreme Court for the appellants, including Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, P Chidambaram, Mukul Rohatgi, Menaka Guruswamy, and PS Patwalia.
Representation for the petitioners included Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar, while Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh..
