Why was the validity of Uttar Pradesh madrasa law upheld by the Supreme Court? | Explained

How do madarsas operate? Why did the Allahabad High Court strike down the law? What were the top court’s observations?

The story so far: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 5, 2024) upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 (2004 Act) except for its provisions allowing the Board to award higher degrees like Kamil (under-graduate studies) and Fazil (post-graduate studies). A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud opined that granting these degrees contravened the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (UGC Act) rendering it unconstitutional. Accordingly, the top court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s decision, which had deemed the 2004 Act to be in breach of the principles of secularism.

How do madarsas operate?

The Arabic word “madarsa” denotes an educational institution. The madrasa system has been in existence since the era of the Delhi Sultanate, receiving patronage from the Khilji and Tughlaq dynasties. Over time, it evolved into a distinct education system that provided both religious and secular learning. Notable figures such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy, the father of the Indian Renaissance, Rajendra Prasad, India’s first President, and the renowned writer Munshi Premchand are historically believed to have gained their foundational knowledge from madarsas and their teachers, known as maulvis.

The bulk of the funding for madrasas comes from the respective State governments. In 1993, the P.V. Narasimha Rao government recognised the necessity of integrating modern education into madrasas resulting in the implementation of the 2009 Scheme for Providing Quality Education in Madrasas (SPQEM).

According to data presented by the Union government in Parliament on February 3, 2020, India has a total of 24,010 madrasas, with around 60% — approximately 14,400 — located in Uttar Pradesh. These include 11,621 recognised and 2,907 unrecognised madarsas. The 2004 Act was enacted to regulate these madrasas with respect to curriculum, standard of education, conduct of examinations, and qualifications for teaching. It also established the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education, predominantly comprising members from the Muslim community. Under Section 9 of the Act, the Board is responsible for preparing course material, granting degrees, and conducting examinations.

What was the case?

A single judge of the Allahabad High Court on October 23, 2019, while hearing a petition filed by Mohammed Javed, expressed doubt regarding the validity of the 2004 Act. Mr. Javed was appointed as a part-time assistant teacher in 2011 for the primary section of Madarsa Nisarul Uloom Shahzadpur, Akbarpur Post Office, District Ambedkar Nagar on a fixed salary of ₹4,000 per month, subject to an 8% annual increment. He approached the High Court contending that he should be paid a salary equivalent to regular teachers and that appointments to madarsas should instead be regulated by the State government, the Madarsa Shiksha Parishad and the district minority welfare officer.

While referring the matter to a larger Bench, the judge observed, “With a secular Constitution in India, can persons of a particular religion be appointed or nominated in a board for education purposes or should it be persons belonging to any religion, who are exponent in the fields for the purposes of which the board is constituted...?”.

Meanwhile, lawyer Anshuman Singh Rathore filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition in the High Court challenging the validity of the 2004 Act on the ground that it violated secularism as well as Articles 14 (equality before law), 15 (which forbids discrimination) and 21-A (right to education) of the Constitution. The larger Bench accordingly framed the question of law for adjudication as — “Whether the provisions of the Madarsa Act stand the test of secularism, which forms a part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India?” The impugned verdict was jointly pronounced on all such pleas.

Why was the law struck down by the High Court?

After examining the curriculum taught in the madarsas, a Bench comprising Justices Subhash Vidyarthi and Vivek Chaudhary observed that the education imparted in such institutions is “neither quality nor universal in nature” and that “the State has no power to create a Board for religious education or to establish a Board for school education only for a particular religion and philosophy associated with it.” It thus concluded that the 2004 Act violated secularism and that the government could not “discriminate” by imparting education based on religion affiliation.

The judges further noted that while “Islamic studies” is mandatory in all madrasas regulated by the 2004 Act, essential modern subjects such as English, mathematics, science, and social sciences are either excluded or made optional. This, they reasoned, undermines the State’s constitutional obligation under Article 21A to ensure “quality” education for all children aged six to 14. It was also asserted that the State could no longer hide behind the “lame excuse” that it is fulfilling its duty by providing traditional education at a nominal fee.

Highlighting that “higher education” is a field reserved under Entry 66 of the Union List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, the High Court further asserted that the State government lacks the competence to legislate on such matters. It accordingly ordered that students enrolled in madarsas be promptly accommodated in regular schools recognised by the State government.

What was NCPCR’s response?

The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), the top child rights protection body in the country, told the top court that madrasas are “unsuitable or unfit” places for children to receive “proper education”. It also flagged concerns related to curriculum, eligibility of teachers, opaque funding, and violation of land laws to assert that such institutions fail to provide a “holistic environment” to children. “

The teachers appointed in madrasas are largely dependent on the conventional methods used in learning the Quran and other religious texts. The “scanty and unregularised” working in madrasas creates a haywire system which just stands alone on the conventional ground of religion,” it contended.

In October 2024, the child rights body also wrote to the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories urging the “closure” of madrasa boards and the cessation of state funding for these institutions. This led to widespread protests in States such as Kerala where leaders across the political spectrum criticised the move for allegedly furthering the Union government’s “communal agenda”. This communication was subsequently stayed by the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court finally decide?

Dismissing the High Court’s finding that the 2004 Act violated secularism, the Chief Justice underscored that any such purported infraction should be traced to an express provision of the Constitution and cannot simply be invalidated by making a blanket statement that it contravened the Basic Structure. “The reason is that concepts such as democracy, federalism, and secularism are undefined concepts. Allowing courts to strike down legislation for violation of such concepts will introduce an element of uncertainty in our constitutional adjudication,” he reasoned.

The court further opined that the state must strike a balance between upholding educational standards and safeguarding the rights of minorities to establish and manage their educational institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution. It noted that the 2004 Act ought to be construed to be in consonance with Article 21A (right to education) “to ensure that religious minority institutions impart secular education of a requisite standard without destroying the minority character”. However, the Chief Justice cautioned that in accordance with Article 28(3) of the Constitution, 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.

The unanimous verdict further noted that while madrasas offer religious instruction, their primary objective is education thereby bringing them within the fold of “education” under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List. “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 judges asserted.

However, the court pointed out that the provisions of the 2024 Act permitting the issuance of higher educational degrees contravene Section 22 of the UGC Act, which stipulates that only institutions defined under the Act are authorised to confer degrees. Nonetheless, the court clarified that this does not imply that the entire statute should be annulled, as doing so would amount to “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”

Published - November 05, 2024 08:36 pm IST