Supreme Court upholds validity of Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 which established the Madarsa Board and provided for the administration of Madrasas by the Minority Welfare Department [Anjum Kadari and anr vs Union of India and ors].

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra set aside a judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had struck down the Act for violating principles of secularism - a facet of basic structure of the Constitution.

The Court said that a law can be struck down for violation of fundamental rights under part III of the Constitution or on grounds of legislative competence but not for violation of basic structure.

"Statute can be struck down only for violation of part III or legislative competence and not for violating basic structure. The High Court erred in holding that statute had to struck down for violating basic structure," the Supreme Court said.

It also held that the object of the Act is to protect the rights of minorities which is in tune with the State's positive obligation.

"The legislative scheme for the Act is to standardise level of education being prescribed in the madrasas. The Madarsa Act does not interfere with the day to day working of the madrasas. It is to protect the rights of minority in the State of Uttar Pradesh and is consistent with positive obligation of the State which ensures the students to pass out and earn a decent living," the Court held.

However, the Court set aside provisions of the Act which empowers the Madarsa Board to prescribe course of instructions and text books for higher education - kamil (postgraduate course) and fazil (junior research programme).

The Court held that the same would be in violation of the University Grants Commission Act (UGC Act).

Verdict in a nutshell

- Madarsa Act regulates education in madrasas;

- It is consistent with positive obligation of State which leads to persons earning decent living;

- Article 21A (right to free and compulsory education) and Right to Education Act has to be read in way so that religious and linguistic minority institutes can impart education;

- It is within the legislative competence of State;

- Provisions of Madarsa Act on fazil and kamil dealing with higher education is in conflict with UGC Act and is thus set aside as unconstitutional.

Background and High Court judgment

The Bench had in May stayed the High Court's decision to declare the Act unconstitutional.

Madrasas/madarsas refer to institutions where Islamic studies and other education may be pursued by students.

The Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 had defined Madarsa-education as including education in Arabic, Urdu, Persian, Islamic-studies, philosophy and other branches of learning as may be specified by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education.

The stated object of the 2004 Act was to empower the Madarsa Education Board by overseeing the functioning of madrasas.

The Act was challenged on the ground that it goes against the principle of secularism.

It was also argued that it fails to provide quality compulsory education up to the age of 14 years/Class-VIII, as is mandatorily required to be provided under Article 21A of the Constitution of India.

It was further contended that it fails to provide universal and quality school education to all the children studying in madarsas, as is mandatorily required to be provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Thus, it violates the fundamental rights of the students of the madrasas.

The High Court had agreed with the petitioners and held that the State has sufficient power to frame laws with regard to education to be provided at school level but such education has to be secular in nature.

"The State has no power to create a Board for religious education or to establish Board for school education only for a particular religion and philosophy associated with it. Any such action on part of State violates the principles of secularism, which is in the letter and spirit of the Constitution of India. The same also violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which provides for equal treatment to every person by the State," the High Court held.

Further, it was held that education under the Madarsa Act was not equivalent to the education being imparted to the students of other regular educational institutions recognized by the State Primary and High School and Intermediate Boards and, therefore, the educations being imparted in Madarsas was neither ‘quality’ nor ‘universal’ in nature.

While the students of all other religions are getting educated in all modern subjects, denial of the same quality by the Madarsa Board amounts to violation of both Article 21A as well as Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the High Court said.

Pertinently, the High Court held that the Act framing laws to regulate higher education is a field reserved for the Central government and State Government has no power to legislate in the said field.

However, Madarsa Act confers power on the Madarsa Board to prescribe course of instructions, text-books, other books and instructional material even for Alim, i.e. under-graduate course, Kamil i.e. postgraduate course, Fazil, i.e. Junior research Programme and other courses.

Hence, the Act is violative of the provision contained in Article 246 (1) of the Constitution which confers powers on parliament to legislate on subjects enumerated in the Union list, the High Court held.

This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Lawyers

Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, P Chidambaram, Mukul Rohatgi, Menaka Guruswamy, PS Patwalia, MR Shamshad and Salman Khurshid appeared for the appellants before the apex court.

They were assisted by advocates Rohit Amit Sthalekar, Sankalp Narain, MA Ausaf, Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, HP Sahi, Srivats Narain, Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Yash Johri, and Lubna Naaz.

Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar appeared for the lawyer who had filed the petition challenging the Act before the High Court.

Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan represented a respondent.

Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Senior Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi appeared for the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights.

[Read judgment]