On November 5, 2024, the Supreme Court (SC) declared the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, with the exception of the sections permitting the Board to issue higher degrees such as Kamil (UG level) and Fazil (PG level). A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud ruled that issuing these degrees violated the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, 1956, rendering it unconstitutional. As a result, the SC overturned the Allahabad High Court’s (HC) ruling that the 2004 Act violated secularism principles. It has provided immense relief to thousands of madarsas and lakhs of students enrolled in these institutions.
The term “madrasa” in Arabic refers to an educational institution. The madrasa system has been around since the Delhi Sultanate. It eventually developed into a distinct school system that offered both religious and secular learning. Notable people such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Rajendra Prasad, and renowned writer Munshi Premchand are historically believed to have received their fundamental knowledge from madrasas and their teachers, known as maulvis. The larger madrasas also provided housing for students, particularly those from poor families.
On February 3, 2020, the then-Minister of Minority Affairs informed the Rajya Sabha that India has 24,010 madrasas in 2018-19, 19,132 of which were recognised madrasas and the rest 4,878 were unrecognised. Recognised madrasas are overseen by state madrasa education boards, while unrecognised madrasas follow the curriculum specified by larger seminaries such as Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama and Darul Uloom Deoband. Uttar Pradesh incorporates up to 60% of the country’s madrasas, with 11,621 recognised and 2,907 unrecognised. Madrasa students study to be Maulvi (equivalent to Class 10), Alim (equivalent to Class 12), Kamil (equivalent to a bachelor’s degree), and Fazil (equivalent to a master’s).
In India, madrasas fall into two categories: Madrasa Darse Aliya, which are connected to the state’s madrasa education board, and Madrasa Darse Nizami, which are operated as public charities and are not required to adhere to the state’s school curriculum. Persian, Arabic, and Urdu are the mediums of education in Madrasa Darse Nizami. The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) curriculum and textbooks, or those published by the state textbook corporation, are used by Madrasa Darse Aliya. The NCERT curriculum is currently followed by the majority of madrasa boards nationwide. Sociology, Hindi, English, Science, and Mathematics are required courses. There is also an optional paper in which students can study Sanskrit or Deeniyat (Quran and other religious teachings). The Sanskrit optional paper covers Hindu sacred scriptures and other religious teachings. After the P.V. Narasimha Rao government recognised in 1993 that madrasas needed to incorporate modern education, the 2009 Scheme for Providing Quality Education in Madrasas (SPQEM) was put into effect.
On March 22, the Allahabad HC struck down the Act in its entirety, claiming that it breached the Constitution’s basic structure by disregarding secularism principles. The SC declared in Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) that Parliament cannot change the basic structure of the Constitution, and in S R Bommai v Union of India (1994) that secularism is a part of that structure. The SC disagreed with the HC’s decision, citing its Indira Nehru Gandhi decision (1975), and declared clearly that the doctrine of basic structure should be used to analyse the constitutionality of a constitutional amendment rather than an ordinary piece of legislation such as the UP Madarsa Act. “The reason is that ideas like democracy, federalism, and secularism are not defined. Allowing courts to overturn laws for violating such ideas would add ambiguity into our constitutional adjudication, the Chief Justice reasoned.
As the SC upheld the UP Madarsa Act of 2004, it emphasised the uniqueness of Indian secularism. In a diverse country, the court has highlighted the interplay of the secular and religious. “The fact that a minority or even majority community runs an educational institution and practices some of its teachings does not imply that the teachings in such institutions are not within the definition of education,” it noted. The Court ruled that establishing madarsas is consistent with minorities’ constitutional freedom to establish educational institutions, while also recognising the necessity for law to “regulate the standard of education” they provide. The Court agreed that the “Act is consistent with the obligation of the state to ensure that students studying in recognised madarsas attain a level of competency… participate in society and earn a living.”
The SC concluded that the HC erred in invalidating the law for infringing the right to education. Under Article 30, minority institutions such as madarsas have the right to provide religious education and administer themselves. The court also stated that the state must strike a difficult balance between ensuring quality education and protecting the autonomy of minority educational institutions. It emphasised that the 2004 Act should be interpreted in accordance with Article 21A “to ensure that religious minority institutions impart secular education of a requisite standard without destroying the minority character.” However, the Chief Justice emphasised that, under Article 28(3) of the Constitution, a student attending a state-recognised minority institution or receiving public funding should not be coerced to participate in religious instruction or worship.
The government defended the Act as a regulatory measure, but the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, as an intervenor, opposed the petitions, claiming that education imparted in madarsas is of poor quality, and thus the law violates Article 21A and the right to a mainstream education. The Bench further stated that Article 21-A and the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009 must be interpreted in tandem with religious and linguistic minorities’ right to establish and govern educational institutions of their choice.
The Court’s insistence on maintaining a regulatory watch over the quality of education in these institutions is also encouraging. A growing amount of scholarship demonstrates madrasas’ intellectual competence, not only in UP but throughout the country. The decision should end the insignificant and artificial debate concerning the character of these organisations. The court also cited Entry 25 of the Constitution’s Concurrent List, which empowers both states and the Centre to adopt laws on “education.”. It stated that this must be given the “broadest meaning” and include institutions that provide religious education.
This verdict establishes an important precedent for balancing necessary state control with the preservation of minority rights.
Shahruk Ahmed Mazumdar is a Writer, Columnist from Assam, India
X/Twitter id: @Shahrukhahmedsk
Email Id: [email protected]
