Madrassas have produced IAS, IPS officers… What arguments did the Muslim organization present in the Parliament?

New Delhi: Tuesday brought relief for Muslim religious leaders. The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Education Board Act. This decision was welcomed by Muslim religious leaders as well as opposition parties. Maulana Khalid Rashid Farangi Mahali, a senior member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, said that now madrassas can run with complete freedom. Let us know what arguments were raised in the court on this issue.Decision on Madrassas welcomed
Khalid Rashid Farangi Mahali said that how can a law made by the government be unconstitutional? Thousands of people are associated with these madrassas and they have got a lot of relief from the decision of the Supreme Court. Now we can run our madrassas with complete freedom. Maulana Yasoob Abbas, spokesperson of the All India Shia Personal Law Board, said that madrassas have given many IAS and IPS officers to the country.

Yasoob Abbas said that we welcome the way that the Supreme Court has found the Act right and appropriate. Madrasas have played an important role in the independence of the country. Madrassas have given us many IAS, IPS, ministers and governors. It is wrong to look at Madrasas with suspicion. If any madrassa is going on the wrong path then action should be taken against it but all madrassas should not be viewed with suspicion. Maulana Kaab Rashidi of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind said that the Supreme Court’s decision gave a very big message. This is a very big message. Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind welcomes it.

What did the court say?
CJI DY Chandrachud said that we have upheld the validity of the UP Madrassa law and further, a law can be struck down only when the state lacks legislative capacity. The bench said that the High Court erred in holding that the law violates the principle of secularism.

What arguments were used in the court?
The Supreme Court held that a law can be held unconstitutional only if it violates fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution or is beyond the jurisdiction of the legislative authority that made it. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra, observed that the Madrassa Act is consistent with the state’s responsibility to ensure that students in recognized madrassas achieve a level of education that enables them to participate in society. And enables one to earn a living.

The Court held that this objective is consistent with the State’s duty to support educational initiatives that prepare students to succeed in various social roles.

However, the Court ruled that those provisions within the Act that specifically attempt to regulate higher education – degrees such as ‘Fazil’ and ‘Kamil’ – conflict with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, Thus these provisions become unconstitutional. The conflict arises because the UGC Act, enacted under Entry 66 of List I (relating to the Central List) in the Constitution, regulates higher education standards in India, including degree recognition. In contrast, the Madrassa Act falls under Entry 25 of List III (Concurrent List), which allows state interference in other educational matters. Since regulating ‘Fazil’ and ‘Kamil’ degrees encroaches on the UGC’s mandate on higher education, the Court held these provisions to be beyond the legislative competence of the state.