In Relief For UP Madrasas, Supreme Court Quashes Allahabad High Court Verdict: Top 10 Points
The Supreme Court of India has provided major relief to around 16,000 madrasas in Uttar Pradesh by upholding the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004. This decision overturned a March 2024 judgment by the Allahabad High Court, which had declared the Act unconstitutional and contrary to the secular principle. The High Court’s ruling had put nearly 17 lakh madrasa students’ futures at risk. Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasised that educational standards can be regulated by the state without infringing on religious administration.
1. The Supreme Court’s three-judge bench, led by CJI Chandrachud, quashed the Allahabad High Court’s March 2024 decision, declaring the UP Madrasa Act constitutional and protecting the status of madrasa education in the state.
2. The March ruling by the High Court had argued that the Act violated secularism and advised that madrasa students be mainstreamed into formal schooling, affecting 17 lakh students.
3. The CJI stated that while the state could regulate educational standards, it did not mean interference with madrasa administration. Ensuring quality education aligns with the state’s positive obligations.
4. The court held that while parts of the Act related to granting degrees like Fazil and Kamil were unconstitutional under UGC regulations, this did not necessitate striking down the entire Act.
5. The Supreme Court highlighted that the Allahabad High Court erred by not applying the principle of severability, which led to unnecessary nullification of the whole Act over a limited conflict.
6. The Supreme Court emphasised that disregarding the Act would undermine centuries-old practices. The CJI warned against dismantling systems that are part of the nation’s historical fabric.
7. The Uttar Pradesh government defended the Act, asserting that it was constitutional and only required examination of specific provisions, not wholesale rejection.
8. The Act established the UP Board of Madrasa Education, mainly consisting of Muslim members, overseeing curriculum, exams, and certificates for classes from ‘Maulvi’ to ‘Fazil’.
9. The CJI commented that secularism is about coexistence, not erasure. The state’s regulation to maintain educational standards aligns with promoting holistic secularism.
Read Also: ‘Law Regulating Educational Institutions of Religious Community Are Not Against Secularism’: Supreme Court
10. The court maintained that religious instruction with educational oversight is not unconstitutional. The Act remains valid with modifications to align with UGC norms for higher degrees.
