SC upholds validity of UP madrasa law

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004, saying a law can’t be struck down on the ground of secularism — a part of basic structure — unless it violates a constitutional provision.

The verdict came as a major relief to 12,34,388 students studying in 13,364 madrasas in Uttar Pradesh, who were ordered to be shifted to formal schools by the Allahabad High Court, which had on March 22 declared unconstitutional the 2004 Act. The Act regulates the functioning of madrasas in the state.

Editorial: Boost to madrasas

Relief to over 12 lakh students

• The verdict came as a major relief to 12,34,388 students studying in 13,364 madrasas in Uttar Pradesh
• They were earlier ordered to be shifted to formal schools by the Allahabad HC, which had declared the 2004 Act unconstitutional

“The Madrasa Act is within the legislative competence of the state legislature and traceable to Entry 25 of List III (Concurrent List)…The Madrasa Act is consistent with the positive obligation of the state to ensure that students studying in recognised madrasas attain a level of competency which will allow them to effectively participate in society and earn a living,” a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said.

The Bench, which also included Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, set aside the high court’s verdict, saying it erred in holding that education provided under the Madrasa Act was violative of the right to education guaranteed to children in the age group of six to 14 years under Article 21A of the Constitution.

“Article 21A and the RTE Act have to be read consistently with the right of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The board with the approval of the state government can enact regulations to ensure that religious minority institutions impart secular education of a requisite standard without destroying their minority character,” said the Bench, which had reserved its verdict on the issue on October 22.

The Bench clarified that the RTE Act, which facilitates the fulfilment of the fundamental right under Article 21A, contained a specific provision which made it inapplicable to minority educational institutions.

The top court, however, declared that “the provisions of the Madrasa Act, which regulates higher education degrees such as Fazil and Kamil (which correspond to a bachelor’s level and a postgraduate degree, respectively) are unconstitutional as they are in conflict with the UGC Act, which has been enacted under Entry 66 of List I (Union List).”

“The Madrasa Act to the extent to which it seeks to regulate higher education, including the ‘degrees’ of Fazil and Kamil, is beyond the legislative competence of the state legislature since it conflicts with Section 22 of the UGC Act. Entry 25 of List III, pursuant to which the Madrasa Act has been enacted, has been expressly made subject to Entry 66 of List I. The UGC Act governs the standards for higher education and a state legislation cannot seek to regulate higher education, in contravention of the provisions of the UGC Act,” it ruled.

However, it said, “The entire statute does not need to be struck down each time that certain provisions of the statute are held to not meet constitutional muster. The statute is only void to the extent that it contravenes the Constitution.”

The state government has an annual budget of Rs 1,096 crore for salaries of teaching and non-teaching staff in the state-aided madrasas. It also provides books and midday meals to madrasa students and operates Industrial Training Institutes in recognised madrasas to impart skills in trades such as welding, mechanics and stenography.