In News:

The Supreme Court recently upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 (also called the Madarsa Act), while striking down certain provisions related to the granting of higher education degrees. The Court overturned the Allahabad High Court's previous decision, which had deemed the Act unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the principle of secularism.

What is the Madarsa Act?

The Madarsa Act provides a legal framework for regulating madrasas (Islamic educational institutions) in Uttar Pradesh. The Act:

• Establishes the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education, which oversees the curriculum and examinations for madrasas.
• Ensures that madrasas follow the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) curriculum for mainstream secular education alongside religious instruction.
• Empowers the state government to create rules for regulating madrasa education.

Allahabad High Court's Ruling

In March 2024, the Allahabad High Court declared the Madarsa Act unconstitutional, citing:

• Violation of secularism: The Court argued that the Act's emphasis on compulsory Islamic education, with modern subjects being optional, discriminated on religious grounds, violating the secular nature of the Constitution.
• Right to Education: The Court also claimed that the Act denied quality education under Article 21A, which guarantees free and compulsory education to children.
• Higher Education Degrees: The Act's provisions allowing the granting of Fazil and Kamil degrees were found to conflict with the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, which regulates higher education.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court overturned the Allahabad High Court's decision on several grounds:

• Basic Structure Doctrine: The Court clarified that the basic structure doctrine, which applies to constitutional amendments, does not apply to ordinary legislation like the Madarsa Act. Therefore, a law cannot be struck down simply for violating secularism unless explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.
• State's Authority to Regulate Education: The Court held that the state has the right to regulate education in minority institutions, as long as the regulation is reasonable and rational. It emphasized that the Madarsa Act does not deprive these institutions of their minority character.
• Right to Education for Minority Institutions: Referring to a 2014 decision, the Court ruled that the Right to Education Act (RTE) does not apply to minority institutions, as it would undermine their right to impart religious education and self-administer.

Striking Down Higher Education Provisions

While upholding most of the Act, the Supreme Court struck down the provisions related to higher education degrees (Fazil and Kamil). It ruled that:

• Section 9 of the Act, which allowed the Board to grant these degrees, is in conflict with the University Grants Commission Act, which only permits degrees to be awarded by universities recognized by the UGC.

Implications of the Ruling

• Regulation of Madrasa Education: The ruling affirms the state's authority to ensure quality education in madrasas, balancing religious instruction with secular subjects.
• Protection of Minority Rights: By upholding the Madarsa Act, the Court protected the rights of religious minorities to run educational institutions while ensuring they meet educational standards.
• Focus on Inclusivity: The judgment emphasizes the integration of madrasas within the broader educational framework, ensuring that madrasa students receive quality education.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision supports the regulation of madrasa education while safeguarding the rights of minority institutions, except in areas related to the granting of higher education degrees, which remain under the jurisdiction of the UGC Act.