JudiciaryImportant2024-11-05

SC Upholds Constitutional Validity of UP Madarsa Education Act

Q: Which of the following statements is/are correct regarding the Supreme Court judgment on the UP Madarsa Education Act?

2 only — Statement 1 is incorrect because the SC ruled that state regulation for academic excellence aligns with positive secularism, overturning the High Court's view. Statement 2 is correct as higher education degrees (Fazil and Kamil) conflict with the UGC Act under Entry 66 of the Union List, which falls outside the state's legislative competence.

In News

What Happened

On November 5, 2024, a three-judge Supreme Court bench overturned an Allahabad High Court ruling, upholding the constitutional validity of the 2004 UP Board of Madarsa Education Act. The Court stated that state regulation of minority education standards aligns with positive secularism. However, it struck down provisions allowing the Board to grant higher education degrees (Fazil and Kamil) as they conflicted with the UGC Act.

Why It Matters

This judgment is crucial because it balances minority educational rights (Article 30) with the state's interest in ensuring quality education. It clarifies the scope of positive secularism in India and delineates the federal boundaries between state education boards and central regulatory bodies like the UGC.

Background

History & Context

The Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act was enacted in 2004 to regulate and improve the quality of education in madarsas. In March 2024, the Allahabad High Court struck down the entire Act, ruling it violated the principle of secularism and failed to provide quality compulsory education under Article 21A. Various madarsa associations appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that regulation does not equate to religious instruction and is necessary for integrating students into mainstream education.

What Changed

▶
BEFORE: The Allahabad High Court had entirely invalidated the 2004 Act, rendering the UP Madarsa Board illegal and ordering the transfer of students to other schools. NOW: The Supreme Court has revived the Act, ensuring the Board continues to function and regulate madarsa education standards.
▶
BEFORE: State regulation of minority institutions was deemed by the High Court as an infringement on secularism. NOW: The Supreme Court clarified that reasonable regulation by the state to ensure academic excellence is permissible and reflects positive secularism.
▶
BEFORE: The UP Madarsa Board was authorized under the state act to grant higher education degrees like Fazil and Kamil. NOW: These specific provisions are struck down because higher education standards fall under the Union List (Entry 66) and the UGC Act, restricting the state board's powers to school-level education.

Prelims Angle

NCERT Connection

This judgment is a direct application of concepts found in Class 11 Political Science Chapter 2 - Rights in the Indian Constitution. It illustrates the practical balancing of Article 30 (right of minorities to administer educational institutions) with the state's duty to ensure educational standards, while also highlighting the federal division of powers regarding legislative competence.

Practice Questions

Q1

Correct Statement(s)

Which of the following statements is/are correct regarding the Supreme Court judgment on the UP Madarsa Education Act?

Up next