The Supreme Court on Tuesday partially upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Education Board Act of 2004 while confirming that the State can regulate madrasa education to ensure standards of excellence.
Though holding that the law secured the interests of the Muslim minority community in Uttar Pradesh, a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud declared the provisions of the 2024 Act pertaining to higher education at the levels of Fazil (under-graduate studies) and Kamil (post-graduate studies) were in direct conflict with the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, and thus, unconstitutional.
The Uttar Pradesh law had wandered into the Centre’s exclusive domain under Entry 66 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Entry 66 conferred the Union the authority to make laws to determine and regulate the standards of higher education.
The judgment, authored by the Chief Justice, said the 2024 Act, except at the Fazil and Kamil levels, was “consistent with the positive obligation of the State to ensure that students studying in recognised madrasas attain a minimum level of competency which allows them to effectively participate in the society and earn a living”.
Chief Justice Chandrachud observed that the 2024 Act, which allowed the Board to prescribe the academic curriculum, textbooks, qualification of teachers and standards of equipment and infrastructure did not directly interfere with the day-to-day administration of recognised madrasas.
Right is ‘not absolute’
The court, while noting that minorities have a right under Article 30 of the Constitution to establish and administer madrasas to impart religious or secular education, said the right was “not absolute”.
“The State has an interest in maintaining the standards of education in minority institutions and may impose regulational conditions for grant of aid and recognition. The Constitutional scheme allows the State to strike a balance between ensuring the standard of excellence and preserving the right of the minorities to establish and administer its educational institutions,” the court explained.
The unanimous judgment, with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra on the Bench, said that ‘education’ in Entry 25 of the Concurrent List must be given a wide meaning. Though recognised madrasas impart religious instruction, their primary aim was education, bringing them within the ambit of Entry 25. The Board under the Act conducted exams and conferred certificates to students.
The top court set aside an Allahabad High Court judgment that the 2024 Act breached Article 21A (right to education) of the Constitution and violated the Basic Structure principle of secularism enshrined in the Preamble.
Chief Justice Chandrachud explained that Article 21A must be read consistently with the rights of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The Madrasa Board under the Act, with the approval of the State government, was free to enact regulations “to ensure that religious minority institutions impart secular education of a requisite standard without destroying the minority character”.
“The mere fact that the education sought to be regulated includes some religious teaching or instruction does not push a legislation outside the legislative competence of a State,” the court noted.
However, the CJI referred to Article 28(3) of the Constitution to add that a student attending a minority institution recognised by the State or receiving aid out of public funds should not be compelled to take part in religious instruction or forced to attend religious worship.
On the High Court’s take that the Madrasa Act violated secularism, Chief Justice reasoned that the infraction by the law should be traced to an express provision of the Constitution, and cannot be quashed by making a blanket statement that it contravened the Basic Structure.
“The constitutional validity of a statute cannot be challenged for the violation of the Basic Structure of the Constitution… In a challenge to the validity of a statute for violation of secularism, it must be shown that the law violates the provisions of the Constitution pertaining to secularism… The High Court erred in holding that the statute is bound to be struck down if it is violative of the Basic Structure,” the CJI held.