The Supreme Court of India has upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004. This judgement reverses a prior ruling by the Allahabad High Court, which had declared the Act unconstitutional.
The Act, designed to regulate educational standards in madrasas under the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education, aims to ensure quality education while respecting minority rights.
The ruling reaffirms the Act’s role in regulating the educational standards of madrasas recognized by the UP Board. The court emphasised that this regulatory framework aims to maintain the quality of education in minority institutions, ensuring that madrasas meet established standards without infringing on minority rights.
The Supreme Court also clarified the legislative competence of the Uttar Pradesh State Legislature, deeming it within the legislature's powers to enact such a law. This assertion is significant, as education regulation generally falls under the state’s purview, making the Act constitutionally sound in overseeing madrasa education within Uttar Pradesh.
However, specific provisions of the Madarsa Act conflict with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, specifically those related to higher education degrees like "fazil" and "kamil." These qualifications, which overlap with higher educational degrees regulated by the UGC, were deemed unconstitutional. This partial conflict means that while the Act is valid, any regulation of higher education degrees within madrasas must align with national standards set by the UGC.
This Supreme Court ruling has significant implications for the madrasa administration in Uttar Pradesh, clarifying the authority of the Madrasa Board in maintaining educational standards without compromising the rights of minorities. The decision also highlights the balance between state-specific educational regulations and overarching national frameworks, ensuring that any higher education provided within madrasas aligns with recognized national criteria.
The ruling has drawn responses from prominent legal figures, including Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, P. Chidambaram, and Mukul Rohatgi, who represented the appellants and argued that the Act supports quality regulation within madrasas. On the other hand, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) opposed the Act, arguing that madrasa education, as regulated under this Act, may fall short of the quality education mandate under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees free and compulsory education for all children.
As this decision takes effect, it may influence broader discussions around madrasa education across India, serving as a benchmark for balancing minority rights and educational standards in minority institutions.