Context:

Recently, the Supreme Court partially upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Education Board Act of 2004.

More on the News

• While setting aside the ruling of the Allahabad High Court which held the Act as unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court partially upheld the Act, except for specific provisions allowing the Madarsa Board to confer higher degrees like Fazil and Kamil.
• The SC held that the law secured the interests of the Muslim minority community in Uttar Pradesh and is consistent with the positive obligation of the State to ensure that students studying in the recognised Madrasas attain a minimum level of competency. 
• However, the ruling held that the provisions of the Act which seeks to regulate higher education, including the degrees of Fazil (undergraduate studies) and Kamil (post-graduate studies) were in direct conflict with the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, and thus, unconstitutional.

Key Highlights of the Verdict

Basic Structure Test Not Needed: 

• The Court clarified that the constitutional validity of a statute cannot be challenged on the grounds of violating the basic structure. Only constitutional amendments, not ordinary laws, are subject to this test.
• For a law to be invalidated based on secularism, it must explicitly violate a constitutional provision, not just the principle of secularism.

State can regulate Madarsas: 

• The ruling stated that while minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institutions, this right is not absolute.
• The state can enforce regulations on minority institutions to maintain educational standards, covering aspects such as curriculum, teacher qualifications, student health, and facility standards.
• Entry 25 of the Concurrent List grants both the state and Centre authority over educational institutions, including religious ones. 

Right to Education & Minority Institutions: 

• The Court noted that Article 21A (Right to Education) does not apply to minority institutions, as specified in the Right to Education (RTE) Act.
• Article 30 protects minority rights to provide religious and secular education, but the state has powers to regulate standards through the Madarsa Board.

Background of the Case

Challenge to the Law: A lawyer challenged the Act, arguing that its “provisions, scheme, and environment” violated constitutional Articles 14 (equality before law), 15 (non-discrimination on religious, racial, caste, sex, or birthplace grounds), and 21-A (right to free, compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14). 

• The petition also claimed that the Act failed to ensure quality, compulsory education up to Class 8 as required under Article 21.

Allahabad High Court’s Ruling: Previously, the Allahabad High Court declared the Act unconstitutional, saying it violated the basic structure of the Constitution as the law flouted the principles of secularism.

• It also stated that the Act violated the right to free and compulsory education under Article 21A of the Constitution by denying “quality” education in modern subjects. 

Supreme Court’s Reversal: Overruling the High Court, the Supreme Court partially upheld the law while confirming that the State can regulate madrasa education to ensure standards of excellence.

About UP Madarsa Act 2004

• The Madarsa Act provides the legal framework for Madarsa education where, apart from the curriculum of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), religious education is imparted as well.
• It created the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education which prepares and prescribes course material, and conducts exams for all courses.
• The Act also gave power to the Board to award degrees from ‘Maulvi’ (equivalent to Class 10) to ‘Fazil’ (equivalent to a Master’s).