Supreme Court upholds UP Madarsa Education Act: What was the case?

What is the 2004 UP Madarsa Act?

The Madarsa Act provides the ineligible model for madarsa acquisition where, isolated from the program of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), spiritual acquisition is imparted arsenic well.

It created the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education, predominantly comprising members of the Muslim community. The functions of the committee are elaborate nether Section 9 of the Act and see preparing and prescribing people worldly and conducting exams for each courses from ‘Maulvi’ (equivalent to Class 10) to ‘Fazil’ (equivalent to a Master’s).

A lawyer had challenged the Act successful a petition, saying “the provisions, strategy and the environment” created by it violated Articles 14 (right to equality earlier law), 15 (prohibition of favoritism connected grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, spot of birth) and 21-A (right to escaped and compulsory acquisition for children betwixt the ages of 6 and 14) of the Constitution.

He besides claimed that the madarsa Act failed to supply prime compulsory acquisition up to the property of 14 years oregon Class 8, and cosmopolitan and prime schoolhouse acquisition to each the children studying successful madarsas, required nether Article 21.

The UP authorities told the Supreme Court Bench it was of the presumption that the instrumentality is constitutional. It said that the Act request not person been struck down successful entirety and lone the offending provisions request to person been examined.

According to information presented by the Centre to Parliament connected February 3, 2020, arsenic of 2018-19, of the full 24,010 madarsas successful India, much than 60% — 14,528 — were successful UP. These included 11,621 recognised madarsas. About 1.69 lakh students sat for the UP madarsa acquisition committee examinations — equivalent to Class 10 and Class 12 — successful 2023.

What was the Allahabad HC’s decision?

On March 22, a Bench of Justices Subhash Vidyarthi and Vivek Chaudhary of the Allahabad HC struck down the Act successful its entirety, deeming it unconstitutional connected 3 main grounds:

1. SECULARISM: Referring to past SC cases, the HC held that secularism means “equal attraction to each religions and spiritual sects and denominations by the State, without either identifying itself with oregon favouring immoderate peculiar religion, spiritual sect oregon determination”.

The tribunal recovered that “… (it is) compulsory for a pupil of Madarsa to survey successful each class, Islam arsenic a religion, including each its prescriptions, instructions and philosophies… The modern subjects are either absent oregon are optional…” It held that the authorities has a work to supply secular education, and cannot “discriminate” by providing acquisition based connected religion.

2. RIGHT TO EDUCATION: Article 21A of the Constitution states: “The State shall supply escaped and compulsory acquisition to each children of the property of six to fourteen years successful specified mode arsenic the State may, by law, determine.”

The HC held that the authorities was violating this close by denying “quality” acquisition successful modern subjects. “The State cannot fell down the lame excuse that it is fulfilling its work by providing accepted acquisition connected nominal fee,” the tribunal said.

3. CONFLICT WITH CENTRAL LAW: The HC held that the provisions of the Madarsa Act empowering the madarsa committee to assistance degrees was successful struggle with the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (UGC Act).

It stated that lone universities oregon institutions “deemed to beryllium a University” nether Section 3 of the UGC Act tin assistance degrees, and “no different idiosyncratic oregon authority, including immoderate Madarsa oregon the Madarsa Board, tin confer immoderate degree”.

Arguments earlier SC

During the hearings successful October 2024, 2 main questions emerged.

FIRST, whether a madarsa imparts “religious education” oregon “religious instruction”. In Ms. Aruna Roy vs Union of India (2002), the SC drew a favoritism betwixt the two. The tribunal held that spiritual instruction, specified arsenic compelling attendance for spiritual worship, was not allowed successful acquisition institutions recognised by the authorities arsenic per Article 28 of the Constitution. But the intent of spiritual education, oregon “education astir religions”, was to thatch students astir antithetic religions “for bringing communal harmony…”, the tribunal held.

During the proceeding connected October 21, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy argued that “the HC wrongly conflates regularisation with spiritual acquisition and thereby says spiritual acquisition violates secularism arsenic provided for by the Constitution”.

SECOND, whether the HC was close successful striking down the full Act, oregon whether it should person constricted the determination to circumstantial provisions and allowed the authorities to modulate the functioning of madarsas.

On October 22, CJI Chandrachud observed that “to propulsion retired the (Madarsa) Act is to propulsion the babe retired with the bathwater”. He said that the authorities authorities has the powerfulness to marque rules nether the Act to guarantee that the acquisition imparted is much secular successful nature.

The respondents, represented by Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar, argued that the Act is not designed to guarantee that students person secular acquisition oregon participate the mainstream. He said the Act lone cements the presumption quo, wherein mainstream subjects are optional and spiritual acquisition is mandatory.

Impact of the decision

The interaction of the SC determination volition beryllium felt straight successful UP, but the CJI repeatedly cautioned the lawyers during hearings that it volition apt person wider ramifications connected spiritual acquisition crossed the country. The CJI’s comments appeared to bespeak that each acquisition institutions that impart immoderate mode of spiritual acquisition (such arsenic gurukuls and convent schools) volition beryllium affected by the determination connected however the principles of secularism interact with the functioning of these institutions.

This is an updated mentation of an explainer first published successful October 2024.