UP Madrasa Act: Constitutional validity of UP Madrasa Act intact… Know what SC said while rejecting HC’s decision

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the UP Madrassa Education Board Act 2004 and said that it does not violate the principle of secularism. The Supreme Court has canceled the decision of Allahabad High Court in which the High Court had rejected this Act and said that the state government should enroll Madrasa students in other schools. The Supreme Court led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud The bench upheld the constitutional validity of the UP Board of Madrasa Education Act 2004. However, the Supreme Court has said in its decision that the provision of the Madarsa Act which regulates higher education in relation to Fazil and Kamil degrees is contradictory under the UGC Act and hence this provision is declared unconstitutional.

‘Madrasa Act is appropriate’

The Supreme Court has said that the Madarsa Act regulates the standards of education in the state. But this right of the administrator of a minority institution is not absolute and the state government can regulate the standards of education. The Supreme Court said that the Madarsa Act is appropriate and it is useful to regulate the interest of the minority community as it regulates education standards, exams and certificates etc. so that children become eligible for higher education.

Madrasa provides religious instruction but its priority is education. The High Court, while rejecting the Madarsa Act, had said that it violates Article 25 (1) (A) and thus the High Court had committed a mistake. In this case, the decision of Allahabad High Court was challenged by Anjuman Qadri, Managers Association Madaris Arabia UP, All India Teachers Association Madaris Arabia New Delhi, Managers Association Arabic Madrasa New Bazaar and Teachers Association Madaris Arabia Kanpur.

UP government did not challenge HC’s decision

The UP government did not challenge the decision of the High Court, but during the hearing, the UP government had said that the Allahabad High Court should not have completely repealed the UP Board of Madrasa Education Act 2004. Rather, the High Court should have struck down only those provisions which violate constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court was hearing the case against the decision of the Allahabad High Court in which the High Court had rejected the UP Madrasa Education Board Act 2004, terming it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court had reserved the decision after hearing on October 22. The High Court had declared the Madrasa Education Board Act 2004 against the principle of secularism. Eight petitions were filed in the Supreme Court against this decision. The Supreme Court, while staying the decision of the High Court, had issued notices to the UP government and the Central government and asked them to file their reply.

Supreme Court asked UP government what is your stand

The Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the UP government in the bench led by Supreme Court Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, had said that the state government has not filed an appeal against the High Court’s decision in the case. The Chief Justice had asked whether you are taking a stand here regarding the validity of the Act? This act belongs to the state government. Can we take on record that the state government is taking a stand on the validity of the Act? The UP government had said during the hearing that it stood in favor of the law in the High Court. The High Court should not have declared the entire law unconstitutional.

The Chief Justice had directly asked the lawyer of the UP government whether you stand with the validity of the law? Then the Additional Solicitor General, on behalf of the UP government, had said that we have been supporting the validity of the Act, since the law has been rejected constitutionally, in such a situation we want to say something. It cannot be different from the stand taken by the state government in the High Court. It cannot be right to repeal the entire law, rather only the provision which was unconstitutional should be repealed.

Rejecting the Act completely is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Petitioner’s lawyer Mukul Rohatgi had said that the rejection of the Act is against secularism. This is a violation of the rights of minority students. On this the Chief Justice commented that secularism means live and let live. If the Act is repealed then how will madrassas be regulated? How can 700 years of history be destroyed? The Chief Justice said that completely rejecting the Act is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

The Supreme Court had put a stay on the High Court’s decision on April 5.

The Supreme Court had put an interim stay on the decision of the Allahabad High Court on April 5. The High Court had rejected the UP Madrasa Education Board Act 2004, terming it unconstitutional. On March 22, 2024, the High Court had declared the Madrasa Education Board Act 2004 against the principle of secularism. A petition was filed in the Supreme Court against this decision. The Supreme Court, while staying the decision of the High Court, had issued notices to the UP government and the Central government and asked them to file their reply.

Allahabad High Court had called it against the principle of secularism.

A bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud of the Supreme Court had said that the objective of the Madrasa Board is of regulatory nature and prima facie it does not seem right for the Allahabad High Court to say that the formation of the Board would be a violation of secularism. The Supreme Court had said that the High Court had misinterpreted the provisions of the 2004 Act. On March 22, the High Court had declared the UP Madrasa Education Board Act 2004 unconstitutional and against the principle of secularism and said that the state government should accommodate the current students in the formal school education system. The Madrasa Board was challenged in the Allahabad High Court by a person named Anshuman Singh Rathore, on which the High Court gave its decision.

The Supreme Court said that prima facie it seems that the High Court has misinterpreted the Act.

The Supreme Court had stayed the decision of the Allahabad High Court and said that prima facie it seems that the High Court has misinterpreted the Act. Allahabad High Court has made a mistake in understanding the meaning of the provision of the Act. This Act is of regulatory nature. The Supreme Court had said that about 17 lakh students were being affected by the High Court order.

The petitioner had called the High Court’s order surprising

Petitioner’s lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi had said that it is difficult for these students and teachers to suddenly adjust to the state educational system. he/she called the arguments of the High Court surprising. he/she rejected the High Court’s observation that modern subjects are not taught in madrassas and claimed that mathematics, science, Hindi, English etc. are taught. he/she had said that there was a code for madrassas in 1908, followed by the 1987 rules and the 2004 Act. The Act was only of regulatory nature, the State has the right to make laws under List Three of Entry 25 of the Constitution.