UP Madarsa Act । Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004

UP Madarsa Act: Madrasas In UP Can Function, Top Court Says High Court Erred In Judgment.

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 on November 5 marks an important legal development, particularly in the context of how statutes are challenged on constitutional grounds.

In this case, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Allahabad High Court’s earlier ruling that struck down the Act, arguing that it violated the basic structure principle of secularism. The High Court had held that the Act’s provisions were inconsistent with India’s secular framework as outlined in the Constitution.

However, the Supreme Court clarified that a law or statute can only be invalidated if it violates specific provisions of the Constitution, such as fundamental rights or the competence of the legislature to enact the law. The basic structure doctrine, which holds that certain features of the Constitution (such as secularism) cannot be altered or destroyed by Parliament, does not automatically invalidate a statute if it does not directly contravene the Constitution’s provisions on secularism.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that while secularism is a fundamental principle of the Indian Constitution, simply invoking the principle of secularism is not sufficient to strike down a law. A statute must clearly contravene the Constitution’s provisions regarding secularism in order to be declared unconstitutional. In this case, the Supreme Court found that the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act did not violate these provisions.

This ruling has significant implications for the interpretation of the Constitution and how laws related to education and religion are to be viewed in terms of their constitutionality, particularly in the context of religious education institutions like madrasas. The judgment highlights that challenges to the constitutional validity of a law must be based on specific violations of constitutional provisions, not merely on a broad claim that it violates the “basic structure” of the Constitution.

In essence, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the basic structure doctrine does not automatically invalidate laws that are not shown to directly violate constitutional provisions.

The Supreme Court’s judgment on November 5, 2024, regarding the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 has nuanced implications for the relationship between religious education, state laws, and higher education in India. While the Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Act, it did, however, strike down part of it concerning the regulation of higher education degrees, specifically the “fazil” and “kamil” degrees, which are conferred by madrasas.

Key Points of the Judgment: UP Madarsa Act

Upholding Constitutional Validity: The Supreme Court upheld the overall constitutional validity of the Act, rejecting the Allahabad High Court’s view that the statute violated the “basic structure” principle of secularism. The Court made it clear that simply invoking the principle of secularism is insufficient to strike down a law. A law must violate specific provisions of the Constitution, such as fundamental rights or legislative competence, to be considered unconstitutional.
Conflict with UGC Act: While the Court upheld the Act, it found that certain provisions related to the regulation of higher education degrees — specifically the fazil and kamil degrees — were in conflict with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, 1956, which governs higher education standards in India. Under the UGC Act, universities and higher educational institutions are regulated by the central government, and degrees must conform to UGC-approved standards.
Unconstitutional Aspects: The Supreme Court concluded that the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act was unconstitutional to the extent that it conferred degrees like fazil and kamil without UGC approval, as these degrees were not aligned with the recognized framework for higher education in India. This creates a legal inconsistency, as the UGC Act regulates university-level degrees and sets standards for academic qualifications.
Broader Implications: This aspect of the judgment reflects a balancing act between state laws governing religious institutions (such as madrasas) and the overarching authority of national educational regulations, like those of the UGC. By striking down this part of the Act, the Supreme Court reinforced the primacy of UGC standards for higher education, ensuring that any degree-granting institution (including madrasas) aligns with the broader regulatory framework of Indian higher education.

Conclusion: UP Madarsa Act

The ruling essentially acknowledges the state’s role in regulating religious educational institutions while also ensuring that they conform to the established national standards for higher education. By striking down the provisions concerning fazil and kamil degrees, the Court reaffirms the primacy of the UGC Act in regulating academic qualifications, ensuring that any degrees granted by madrasas in these fields are recognized and compliant with national norms for higher education.

Thus, the Court has created a precedent for the regulation of religious education in the country, one that seeks to balance religious freedoms with the necessity of maintaining a uniform standard for academic degrees.

The decision you’re referring to concerns a recent judgment by the Uttar Pradesh High Court, which declared the Uttar Pradesh Madarsa Education Act as ultra vires. This ruling came after the court examined a writ petition filed by Anshuman Singh Rathore, challenging the constitutionality of the UP Madarsa Board, which is overseen by the Minority Welfare Department of the Uttar Pradesh government.

Key Points from the Judgment:

Ultra Vires Declaration: The High Court ruled that the UP Madarsa Education Act was unconstitutional, effectively declaring it ultra vires—meaning it was beyond the legal powers of the state or violated fundamental legal principles.
Madarsa Regulation: The petitioners had raised objections to the management of Madrasas by the Minority Welfare Department of both the Uttar Pradesh Government and the Union of India. The key issue was whether the state has the authority to regulate religious institutions like Madrasas, which provide education predominantly to Muslim students.
Directive to the State Government: Although declaring the law as ultra vires, the High Court recognized the need for a practical solution to ensure that students studying in Madrasas are not left out of the formal education system. Therefore, the court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to frame a scheme for the integration of Madarsa students into the formal education system.
Parties Involved:

Petitioners’ Side: The petitioners’ legal team included prominent senior advocates such as Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, P.S. Patwalia, P. Chidambaram, Menaka Guruswamy, Salman Khurshid, and others.
State’s Side: The Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj represented the Uttar Pradesh government.
Other Intervenors: There were also intervenors, including Senior Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi (for NCPCR) and Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan (for another intervenor opposing the Act).

Context of the Case:
The case stemmed from broader debates regarding the regulation of Madrasas, which have traditionally been run independently, often with the goal of providing religious and general education to Muslim children. Critics argue that such regulation could potentially undermine secularism or lead to discrimination in education. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) also had concerns about how Madrasas were being managed and the quality of education provided.
Legal Background and Precedents:
The Supreme Court has previously considered the issue of Madarsa regulation in relation to secularism. The Court has observed that regulation of religious institutions is not inherently against secularism, but care must be taken to ensure that it does not impinge upon religious freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.
Next Steps: Following the High Court’s decision, the Uttar Pradesh government is expected to come up with a new policy or scheme to incorporate Madarsa students into the mainstream educational framework, potentially ensuring that they receive education equivalent to that in formal schools.

Summary of the High Court’s Key Points:

The Uttar Pradesh Madarsa Education Act is unconstitutional and cannot stand.
The government must create a system to integrate Madarsa students into the formal education system, ensuring their educational development.
The ruling has broader implications for how religious institutions, especially Madrasas, are regulated by the state.

The case has attracted considerable attention as it raises important questions about the intersection of religious freedom, education rights, and state regulation.