With the exception of the clauses enabling the Board to grant advanced degrees like Fazil and Kamil, the Supreme Court on Tuesday maintained the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004.
The court ruled that the awarding of higher degrees was illegal since it violated the 1956 University Grants Commission Act.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud led a three-judge Supreme Court panel that overturned the Allahabad High Court’s March 22 decision declaring the Act unconstitutional.
“The Madrasa Act regulates the standard of education in Madarsa as recognised by the Board for imparting Madarsa education….is consistent with the positive obligation of the state to ensure that students studying and recognised Madrasas attain a level of competency which will allow them to effectively participate in society and earn a living” and “Article 21A (of the Constitution) and the Right to Education (RTE) Act have to be read consistently with the right of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer education institutions of their choice,” the CJI said while reading out the verdict.
The bench also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said while “the Madrasa Act is within the legislative competence of the state legislature”, the Act “to the extent to which it seeks to regulate higher education, including the degrees of Fazil and Kamil is beyond the legislative competence of the state legislature since it conflicts with section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act…The UGC act governs the standards for higher education, and the state legislation cannot seek to regulate higher education in contravention of the provision of the UGC Act.”
The Court said the “Board with the approval of the state government can enact regulations to ensure that religious minority institutions impart secular education of a requisite standard without destroying the minority character.”
Since secularism is a component of the fundamental framework of the constitution, the HC declared that the Act was unconstitutional.
On this, the SC bench said a “statute can be struck down only for the violation of part 3 or any other provision of the constitution or for being without legislative competence. The constitutional validity of a statute cannot be challenged for violation of the basic structure of the constitution. This court has accepted that a challenge to the constitution validity of a statute for violation of the basic structure of the constitution is a technical aspect because the infraction has to be traced to the express provisions of the constitution. Hence, in a challenge to the validity of a statute for violation of the principle of secularism, it must be shown that the statue violates provisions of the constitution relating to secularism.” It said that “the High Court erred in holding that the statute is bound to be struck down if it is violative of the basic structure.”
The court held that “the right of minorities to administer educational institutions is not absolute” and “the state has an interest in maintaining the standards of education in minority educational institutions and may impose regulation as a condition for grant of aid or recognition. The constitutional scheme allows the state to strike a balance between the two objectives of…ensuring the standard of excellence of minority education institutions, and…preserving the right of the minority to establish and administer its education institutions.”
It added, “the state can regulate aspects of the standards of education, such as the courses of study, the qualification, appointment of teachers, the health and hygiene of students, and facilities for libraries.”
The SC said that the Madrasa Act “the provisions of the Act are reasonable because they subserve the objective recognition that is improving the academic excellence of students in the recognised Madrasas and making them capable to sit for examinations conducted by the board. The Madrasa Act secures the interest of the minority community in Uttar Pradesh because…it regulates the standard of education imparted by recognised madrassas, and…it conducts examination that confers certificates to students, allowing them the opportunity to pursue higher education. The Madrasa Act is consistent with the positive obligation of the state to ensure that students studying in the recognised Madrasas attain a minimum level of competency, which will allow them to effectively participate in society and earn a living.”
The ruling said the HC “erred in holding that the education provided under the Madrasa Act is violative of Article 21A (of the Constitution) because the Right to Education Act, which facilitates the fulfillment of the fundamental right under Article 21A, contain the specific provision by which it does not apply to minority educational institutions”.
It added that “the right of religious minority to establish and administer to impart both religious and secular education is protected by Article 30” and “the Board and the state government have sufficient regulatory powers to prescribe and regulate standards of education for the Madrasas.”
The court said that “while the Madrasas do impact religious instruction, their primary aim is education.”
It added, “entry 25 of list 3 (concurrent list), which pertains to education, must be given a wide meaning to include all ancillary subjects comprehended within the entry. The mere fact that the education sought to be regulated includes some religious teachings or instruction does not automatically push the legislation outside the legislative competence of the state.”
It said that “Article 28(3) of the constitution provides that no person who is attending any education institution recognised by the state or receiving aid out of state funds shall be compelled to take part in religious instruction or attend religious worship without their consent. The corollary to this provision is that religious instruction may be imparted in an educational institution, which is recognised by the state or which receives state aid, but no student can be compelled to participate in religious instruction in such an institution. To read entry 25 of list 3 in the manner proposed by the respondent would render it inapplicable to all legislation which deals with any institution established and administered by minorities, which may provide some religious instruction”.
