SC upholds constitutional validity of UP Madarsa Education Act, overturns HC's verdict

The Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, in a ruling delivered on November 5, 2024. This decision impacts around 16,000 madrasas operating in Uttar Pradesh, allowing them to continue functioning under the regulatory framework established by the Act. The Supreme Court's three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, overturned a judgment from the Allahabad High Court, which had declared the Act unconstitutional on March 28, 2024. The High Court’s ruling asserted that the Act was contrary to the principles of secularism and violated the educational rights of minority communities.

The Supreme Court's judgment affirmed that the Uttar Pradesh government has a legitimate interest in regulating madrasas to ensure that educational standards are met. The court clarified that while madrasas offer religious education, they also serve a crucial educational role. The right of minority communities to manage educational institutions is not absolute, and the state has the authority to implement regulations aimed at maintaining educational quality.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court examined specific provisions of the Madarsa Act concerning higher education degrees, particularly the 'fazil' and 'kamil' qualifications. The court found that these provisions are in conflict with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, which governs higher education institutions across India. As a result, the court ruled that these particular provisions of the Madarsa Act are unconstitutional, while reaffirming the overall constitutional validity of the Act. This distinction allows madrasas to continue providing education while ensuring that their higher education offerings comply with UGC standards.

The Supreme Court also highlighted the role of the Madarsa Act in standardizing the quality of education within madrasas in Uttar Pradesh. The Act was established to enhance educational outcomes for students attending madrasas, providing a structured framework for their operation. The court noted that the Act protects the educational interests of minority communities, facilitating the regulation and recognition of madrasa education.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed the assertion made by the Allahabad High Court that the Act infringes upon rights protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which pertains to the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court concluded that the provisions of the Madarsa Act do not violate these rights. This ruling was prompted by an appeal filed by Anjum Kadari, who contested the High Court's decision.

The Supreme Court had previously issued a stay on the implementation of the High Court’s judgment while reviewing the matter. During the hearings, the Uttar Pradesh government, represented by Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, argued that the High Court's decision to invalidate the entire Act was overly broad and that only specific provisions should have been examined. The Supreme Court's ruling clarifies the legal framework governing madrasas in Uttar Pradesh, allowing them to operate under established educational standards.