Why in News:
On November 5, 2024, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, setting aside the Allahabad High Court’s 2019 verdict, which had deemed the Act a violation of secular principles. However, the court invalidated sections allowing madrasas to award higher degrees like Kamil and Fazil, which conflicted with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act of 1956.
How do Madrasas Operate?
The term “madrasa” originates from the Arabic language, meaning a place of learning. Traditionally, madrasas offer both religious and secular education. Originating during the Delhi Sultanate, they have evolved with support from prominent figures like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Rajendra Prasad. Funding largely comes from state governments, while the 2009 Scheme for Providing Quality Education in Madrasas (SPQEM) was introduced to incorporate modern subjects. In Uttar Pradesh, where 60% of India’s madrasas are situated, the 2004 Act created the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education to regulate curriculum, exams, and qualifications.
The Case in Allahabad High Court
The 2019 case began when Mohammed Javed, a part-time madrasa teacher, filed a petition in the Allahabad High Court requesting equal pay. Subsequently, a PIL argued that the 2004 Act conflicted with secular principles, equality before law (Article 14), and the right to education (Article 21A). The High Court concluded that the Act breached secularism, asserting that the State could not create a religious education board focused on a specific philosophy, nor could it exclude core secular subjects.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, arguing that secularism is an undefined constitutional principle, which alone cannot invalidate legislation. The Court underscored that minority education institutions like madrasas should impart quality education while retaining autonomy under Article 21A. However, it clarified that religious teachings should be optional in minority institutions receiving state aid. The Court invalidated provisions related to higher degree awards under the UGC Act but upheld the rest of the Act, emphasizing the State’s legitimate interest in regulating educational standards.
Implications of the Ruling
The verdict reinforces the protection of minority rights within the broader education framework while ensuring state oversight. The ruling may prompt the Centre to re-evaluate madrasa funding, especially following a steep budget reduction from ₹10 crore to ₹2 crore. The verdict balances quality education requirements with respect for religious diversity, potentially influencing policy approaches toward minority institutions in India.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s verdict on the U.P. Madrasa Act underlines a balanced approach to secularism by affirming the Act’s educational objectives while emphasizing quality and inclusivity. The decision represents a significant precedent for managing religious and secular elements in India’s educational landscape, fostering an inclusive educational system that respects diversity.
