Supreme Court overturns HC judgement ordering accommodation of UP madarsa students in formal education system

On 5 November 2024, a three-judge bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra partly upheld the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 (‘the Act’). The Act regulates standards of education, qualifications for teachers and conduct of examinations in madarsas. 

In doing so, the Court has overturned the Allahabad High Court’s decision in Anshuman Singh Rathore v Union of India (2024), which struck down the law entirely on the ground that it violated “secularism”. The High Court had sought the shutting down of all 16,000 madarsas across Uttar Pradesh, which  impart education to nearly 17 lakh Muslim students.

The judgement, authored by CJI Chandrachud, did strike down those provisions of the Act which regularised degrees such as ‘Fazil’ and ‘Kamil’, purported to be equivalent to bachelors and masters degrees of the mainstream educational framework. The Court has found these provisions unconstitutional for violating the University Grants Commission Act. Consequently, the Court said that madarsas can impart education only up to Class 12.

In the judgement, the Court stressed the need to balance the interests of religious minorities in running educational institutions and the state’s interest in regulating standards.
The decision has been termed  “historic” by Muslim organisations. The All India Muslim Jamaat, for instance, claimed that the decision “has done justice to the lakhs of students and teachers associated with madarsa education in the state.”

From Allahabad to the Supreme Court

In October 2023, the Uttar Pradesh government formed a Special Investigation Team to investigate foreign funding of madarsas in the state. Soon after, one Anshuman Singh Rathore filed a writ petition in the Allahabad HC, specifically challenging provisions of the UP Madarsa Board Act and contesting the management of madarsas by the Minority Welfare Department. In March 2024, a Division Bench of the Allahabad HC struck down the legislation in its entirety, broadly on two significant grounds.

The first ground was that the legislation demonstrated an “unsecular” character because it paved the way for “different type of education to children belonging to different religions.” “Since providing education is one of the primary duties of the State, it is bound to remain secular while exercising its powers in the said field,” the High Court noted, “It cannot provide for education of a particular religion, its instructions, prescriptions and philosophies or create separate education systems for separate religions. Any such action on the part of the State would be violative of the principles of secularism, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India.”

The second ground was that the quality of education being imparted in madarsas was sub-par. “While the students of all other religions are getting educated in all modern subjects,” the Court observed, “denial of the same quality by the Madarsa Board amounts to violation of both Article 21-A as well as Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to take steps “for accommodating all Madarsa students in regular schools.” In April 2024, a Special Leave Petition was filed to challenge the ruling of the High Court. On 5 April 2024, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court decision. That day, curiously, the Uttar Pradesh government revealed that it was choosing to accept the High Court’s decision. It had defended the UP Madarsa Board Act in the High Court. K.M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General of India, stated that the Union was also standing by the High Court’s judgement.

Legislation cannot be struck down for violating ‘basic structure’

On 5 November 2024, the Court challenged the reasoning adopted by the High Court in striking down the legislation. It noted that a legislation could only be struck down if it either violated provisions and schedules of the Constitution. However, the Court clarified, a legislation could not be struck down on the ground that it violated the ‘basic structure.’ In Kesavananda Bharati v Union of India (1973), the Court had held that ‘secularism’ formed a part of the basic structure doctrine.

The Court held that even if secularism were to be considered a ground to strike down the law, the “the infraction has to be traced to the express provisions of the Constitution.” It reasoned that before striking down the law, it must be “shown that the statute violates provisions of the Constitution pertaining to secularism.”

High Court erred in holding that the law violated Article 21A

The Court noted that the UP Madarsa Board, which regulates the standard of education across registered madarsas in the state, and also conducts examinations and confers certificates to students, fulfilled the positive obligation of the State which was to ensure a “minimum level of competency which will allow them to effectively participate in society and earn a living.” Consequently, it held that the High Court’s conclusion that the legislation was opposed to Article 21A was flawed.

It also brought attention to Section 1(5) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which specifically excluded madarsas from the purview of Article 21A.

The Act strikes a balance between right of minorities to establish educational institutions and state regulation

The Court noted that legislation fell squarely within the “constitutional scheme” which allows a certain balance to be achieved, between:

1) ensuring a standard of excellence in education, which would include regulations surrounding the course of study, the qualification for appointment of teachers, the health and hygiene of students and facilities for libraries, and

2) the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions

Exploring the legislative intent, the judgement notes that the Act ensures that students in registered madarsas are exposed to a level of education that makes them capable of succeeding in board exams by prescribing books and curriculum, and preventing maladministration of the institutions. The law does this while also ensuring that there is no interference in the day-to-day administration of registered madarsas.

The Uttar Pradesh legislature was competent to enact the legislation

The judgement rules that the Act, except the provisions dealing with higher education, was within the legislative competence of the state government. Entry 25 of the Concurrent List under Schedule 7 enumerates “education, including technical education, medical education and universities…vocational and technical training in labour.” 

The Court referred to its recent decision in Mineral Area Development Authority v Steel Authority of India (2024), where a nine-judge bench ruled that all entries must be read expansively, and their meanings extended “to all ancillary and subsidiary matters which can fairly and reasonably be said to be comprehended in them.” It noted that Entry 25 must  similarly be given a broad reading to include madarsas. Merely because madarsas imparted religious education did not mean that they were beyond the purview of Entry 25.

Further, Article 28(3) notes that no person studying in an educational institution either recognised by the State or receiving government funds could be compelled to be imparted with religious instructions or attend religious worship. This, the Court clarified, meant that educational institutions were not prohibited from imparting religious instructions, so long as no student was compelled to participate in the same. It noted that if Entry 25 were interpreted in such a way that madarsas are excluded from them, it would turn the entry obsolete since any legislation dealing with institutions established or administered by minorities and imparting religious education would fall outside the ambit of Entry 25.

Madarsa Act is unconstitutional in so far as it regulates on higher education

Madarsas offer different education levels such as ‘tahataniya’ (for primary education), and ‘fauqaniya’ for Classes 6 to 8. Recognised madarsas in Uttar Pradesh conduct exams at the levels of Munshi (which is equivalent to 10th grade), Alim (equivalent to 12th grade) and Fazil and Kamil higher education degrees which include the study of Hadith, Arabic literature and Islamic jurisprudence. The Court held that the UP Madarsa Board Act was unconstitutional in so far as it dealt with the Fazil and Kamil examinations, which are purported to be the equivalent of Bachelors and Masters degrees respectively.

It reasoned that Entry 25 of the Concurrent List is subject to Entry 66 of the Union List, which provides exclusive competence to the Parliament to frame laws for the “co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research.” Further, it noted that the regulation of higher education in madarsas was contrary to Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, which states that only institutions defined under it can provide higher education degrees.

In conclusion, the Court ruled that the UP Madarsa Board needs to only ensure that the minority institutions “impart secular education of a requisite standard without destroying their minority character.” With this, the Court set aside the judgement of the Allahabad High Court.