Supreme Court Upholds Validity of UP Madrasa Act, Declares Fazil and Kamil Higher Education Unconstitutional

Supreme Court Upholds Validity of UP Madrasa Act, Declares Fazil and Kamil Higher Education Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court of India recently upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004. The decision comes as a response to an appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court’s March 22 ruling, which had declared the UP Madrasa Act unconstitutional, citing a conflict with secularism principles. However, the Supreme Court partially modified the ruling, finding that while the Act itself is valid, the Fazil and Kamil higher education degrees offered by Madrasas are unconstitutional due to a conflict with the UGC Act.

Supreme Court Verdict: Key Points on the Madrasa Act

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra stated that while the UP Madrasa Act remains valid, it cannot regulate higher education in Fazil and Kamil degrees, as these fall under the University Grants Commission's purview. The court also clarified that while minority communities have the right to establish and administer educational institutions, this right is not absolute and can be regulated by the state to uphold educational standards.

In its verdict, the Court asserted:

> “The legislative scheme for the Act is to standardize the level of education being prescribed in the madrasas…It is to protect the rights of the minority in the State of Uttar Pradesh and is consistent with the positive obligation of the State, ensuring students pass out with qualifications that support a decent living.”

Allahabad High Court’s Initial Verdict on UP Madrasa Act

The Allahabad High Court, in its earlier ruling, had struck down the UP Madrasa Act, describing it as a violation of the secularism principle, a core element of India’s constitutional framework. The High Court contended that the Act failed to align with secularism and urged the Uttar Pradesh government to accommodate madrasa students within mainstream schools. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that a law cannot be invalidated solely for conflicting with the basic structure of secularism, unless it infringes upon the fundamental rights outlined in Part III of the Constitution.

Supreme Court’s Perspective on Religious Education and National Integration

During the hearings, the Supreme Court highlighted India’s diversity as a “melting pot of cultures, civilizations, and religions.” The CJI remarked that religious teachings are not unique to the Muslim community; other faiths also impart religious education. The bench observed:

> “Ultimately, we have to view it through the broad sweep of the country…The answer to ghettoization is to allow people to come to the mainstream and encourage inclusivity.”

The bench also noted that while religious education is protected, efforts should be made to integrate diverse communities within a unified educational framework.

NCPCR’s Concerns: Right to Education Act Compliance

Representatives from the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) argued that madrasa education falls short of the Right to Education Act, 2009 standards. According to NCPCR, the education provided in madrasas is limited, failing to equip children with comprehensive learning opportunities. This, it argued, hinders children’s access to a well-rounded education, affecting their growth and development.

The NCPCR submitted:

> “Madrasa education infringes on children’s fundamental right to quality education by failing to meet necessary standards. As a result, children are deprived not only of a suitable education but also of a healthy learning environment and improved growth prospects.”

State Support and Legislative Background

The Uttar Pradesh government expressed support for the 2004 Act, stating that it aligns with state interests in regulating and standardizing education. While the Supreme Court’s decision ensures the Act’s continuity, it also reflects the necessity of delineating the limits of educational regulation by minority institutions to ensure compliance with national standards.

Appeals and Institutions Challenging the High Court Ruling

The appeals against the High Court’s ruling were filed by:

- Anjum Kadari

- Managers Association Madaris Arabiya (UP)

- All India Teachers Association Madaris Arabiya (New Delhi)

- Manager Association Arbi Madarsa Nai Bazar

- Teachers Association Madaris Arabiya Kanpur

These groups, representing madrasa institutions and educators, sought to uphold the Madrasa Act’s validity to continue providing education aligned with Islamic teachings.

Conclusion: Implications of the Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court’s decision upholds the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004, thereby maintaining the right of minority institutions to impart religious education. However, the judgment also emphasizes the need for madrasa education to align with national standards where applicable. The Court’s guidance on religious inclusivity aims to support India’s pluralistic values while fostering a more unified educational system.