MADARSA EDUCATION ACT – SC VERDICT

MADARSA EDUCATION ACT – SC VERDICT

NEWS: On November 5, 2024, the Supreme Court upheld the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004.The court overturned the Allahabad High Court’s decision, which had ruled the Act unconstitutional on grounds of secularism.

·         Exception: Provisions allowing madrasas to grant higher degrees (like Kamil and Fazil) were deemed unconstitutional as they conflicted with the UGC Act, 1956.

WHAT’S IN THE NEWS?

Background on Madrasa Education

·         “Madrasah” in Arabic means educational institution, historically offering religious and secular learning.

·         Notable figures such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Rajendra Prasad received foundational knowledge from madrasas.

·         Madrasas in India are predominantly funded by state governments, with integration of modern education encouraged under schemes like the 2009 SPQEM.

Purpose of the UP Madrasa Act, 2004

·         Enacted to regulate madrasas in terms of curriculum, examination standards, and teaching qualifications.

·         Established the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education, primarily staffed by members of the Muslim community.

Case Details and Allahabad High Court’s Judgment

Petition and Doubts on Secularism

    • The case originated from a petition by Mohammed Javed, who sought regular teacher salary status.
    • The Allahabad High Court questioned the secular nature of a religious board and deemed the Act discriminatory.

High Court’s Observations

    • Found madrasa education lacking in quality and universality.
    • Objected to religious exclusivity, stating that secular education should not be associated with a single religion.
    • Concluded that the Act violated secular principles, and recommended transferring madrasa students to regular schools.

 

NCPCR’s Response and Directives

Concerns Raised by NCPCR

·         The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights argued that madrasas were inadequate for holistic education.

·         Highlighted issues in curriculum, teacher qualifications, and transparency in funding.

·         Urged states to withdraw recognition from madrasas that didn’t comply with the Right to Education Act, 2005.

Controversy and Legal Challenge

·         Directives to transfer non-Muslim madrasa students to regular schools were contested by Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind.

·         Supreme Court intervened, pausing implementation of these directives pending a final verdict.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning and Final Judgment

On Secularism and Minority Rights

    • Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud emphasized that secularism and related concepts are undefined and should not be blanket grounds for invalidation.
    • Affirmed that minority institutions could offer secular education while maintaining their religious character, aligned with Article 21A.

Educational Balance and Religious Freedom

    • Stressed that students in minority institutions should not be compelled to participate in religious instruction.
    • The Court recognized that madrasas provide education beyond religious teachings, falling under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List.

Ruling on Higher Degrees

    • Struck down provisions allowing madrasas to issue higher degrees, as it encroached upon UGC’s regulatory authority.
    • Clarified that this specific provision’s invalidation does not negate the Act’s validity as a whole.

Implications of the Verdict

Balance between Oversight and Minority Rights

    • The verdict reinforces a balanced approach, enabling state oversight while protecting minority rights in education.
    • Establishes precedent for accommodating religious diversity within India’s education system.

Potential Re-evaluation of Madrasa Funding

    • The ruling may prompt reconsideration of government funding for madrasas, which was recently reduced in the 2024-25 budget.
    • The verdict highlights the importance of madrasas, which serve over 2.7 million students and employ 10,000 teachers in UP alone.

Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/why-the-supreme-court-upheld-up-madarsa-act-2004-9655927/#:~:text=The%20SC%20in%20the%20Madarsa,own%20administration%20under%20Article%2030.