Introduction
A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Hon’ble Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Hon’ble Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra upheld the Madarsa Act. The statute regulates the standard of education in madarsas recognised by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education.
In 2019, a Writ Petition was filed before the Hon’ble High Court by a part-time assistant teacher in one of the Madarsas. He sought regularization of his services and salary at par with regular teachers, relying on several provisions of the Madarsa Act and the allied Regulations. By an Order dated 23 October 2019, a Single Judge issued notice on the Writ Petition and observed that certain questions related to the vires of the Madarsa Act arose for consideration, which warranted consideration by a larger bench.
Key Constitutional Questions Raised
- Whether the purpose of the Board is to impart religious education only?
- Under a secular Constitution, whether members of a particular religion be appointed to an educational board, or appointments be made without regard to religion, prioritizing individuals who are exponents in the relevant field for which the board is constituted?
- Whether it is arbitrary for Madarsa education
Positive Secularism and Substantive Equality
The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined Madarsa Act regulates madarsas to enhance educational standards while preserving their minority character. It establishes a Board to oversee curricula, examinations, and recognition, ensuring compliance with standards for staff, infrastructure, and resources.
- Enhances educational standards
- Preserves minority character
- Ensures compliance in infrastructure and staffing
The Act balances reasonable regulation with non-interference in daily administration, fostering substantive equality by empowering minority communities to overcome barriers and participate fully in society.
It aligns with the Constitution’s vision of positive secularism and equality, ensuring minority institutions meet academic excellence without compromising their distinct identity.
Positive secularism allows the State to treat some persons differently to treat all persons equally.
The Hon’ble High Court relied on the belief that religion and secular activities must be kept separate, with the State maintaining neutrality and offering equal protection to all religions.
Basic Structure Of The Constitution
The issue that arose regarding the basic structure before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether ordinary legislation could be invalidated on the basis of the Basic Structure Doctrine.
The Court examined the validity of statutes in light of the basic structure doctrine, emphasizing that secularism is a fundamental feature of the Constitution, as established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and S. R. Bommai v. Union of India.
Key Findings
- Ordinary legislation cannot be invalidated solely for violating the basic structure
- The doctrine primarily applies to constitutional amendments
- Statutes can be challenged only on:
- Lack of legislative competence
- Violation of Fundamental Rights (Part III)
- Violation of other constitutional provisions
This prevents uncertainties arising from undefined principles such as democracy, federalism etc.
It was concluded before the Hon’ble Court that a statute challenging secularism must prove an explicit constitutional violation.
The Hon’ble High Court held that the violation of the Basic Structure Doctrine led to the invalidation of the statute.
The Interplay Of Article 21-A And Article 30
The interplay of Articles 21-A and 30 highlights the balance between the State’s obligation to provide free and compulsory education under Article 21-A and the rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30.
RTE Act And Minority Rights
- The RTE Act furthers Article 21-A
- It exempts minority institutions to safeguard their distinct character
- Ensures regulatory standards for quality education
Minority institutions must meet regulatory standards to ensure quality secular education alongside religious instruction, striking a balance between excellence and autonomy.
The Hon’ble High Court erred in deeming Madarsa education violative of Article 21-A, as it contains a specific provision by which it does not apply to minority educational institutions.
The right of religious minorities to establish and administer madarsas to impart both religious and secular education is protected by Article 30, and the state and the board have sufficient regulatory powers to prescribe and regulate standards of education for the Madarsas.
High Court Observation On Education Quality
The Hon’ble High Court held the education provided under the Madarsa Act was violative of Articles 21 and 21-A of the Constitution of India.
- Syllabus focuses primarily on religious education
- Modern subjects like science are optional
- Lack of integrated curriculum
This limited education cannot be considered quality education as mandated by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court emphasized education must be:
- Inclusive
- Equal
- Future-oriented
Denial of modern education amounts to a violation of fundamental rights. Consequently, the education provided under the Madarsa Act is found to be in violation of Articles 21 and 21-A.
Conflict Between The Madarsa Act And The UGC Act
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that higher education is a subject reserved for the Union of India, meaning that State Governments lack the authority to legislate in this domain.
UGC Act Provisions
- Section 22 allows only Universities to confer degrees
- Madarsas or Boards cannot grant degrees
Constitutional Conflict Analysis
| Aspect | Madarsa Act | UGC Act |
|---|---|---|
| Authority to grant degrees | Madarsa Board | Universities / Deemed Universities |
| Legal validity | Conflicting provisions | Recognized under law |
| Constitutional backing | State legislation | Union List (Entry 66) |
Various sub-sections of Section 9 of the Madarsa Act confer powers to the Madarsa Board with regard to undergraduate, postgraduate and junior research degrees, which are vested in the University Grants Commission under the UGC Act.
These fall under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
The Court concluded that these powers align with those given to the University Grants Commission.
Consequently, the Madarsa Act was deemed unconstitutional to the extent it violates Article 246(1) of the Constitution.
The Apex Court and the High Court agreed in this regard.
Legislative Competence
The Madarsa Act falls within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 25, List III of the Seventh Schedule, which includes “education” as a concurrent subject. Education encompasses institutions imparting religious instruction, as their primary aim remains education. The Constitution’s framework permits both Parliament and State legislatures to legislate on education, with the doctrine of pith and substance resolving overlaps.
Entry 25, List III, subject to Entries 63-66 of List I, does not exclude religious education, and no conflicting central legislation exists, as the RTE Act specifically excludes Madarsas. The regulation of minority institutions under Entry 25 has been upheld by the Supreme Court, ensuring it aligns with Article 30 rights. Thus, the challenge to the Act on legislative competence fails.
Does The Entire Legislation Need To Be Struck Down?
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that only the provisions which relate to Fazil and Kamil are unconstitutional and the Madarsa Act otherwise remains valid.
Certain provisions of the Madarsa Act pertaining to the regulation of higher education and the conferment of these degrees have been declared to be unconstitutional due to a lack of legislative competence. According to Article 13(2) of the Constitution, a statute is void only to the extent that it contravenes the Constitution. These provisions can be severed from the legislation. Higher education was a part of the function of the Board and even if these provisions are separated, the Act can continue to be enforced in a real and substantial manner.
The Hon’ble High Court was of the opinion that in addition to the part of the statute which is in violation of the UGC Act, the other parts of this statute are in violation of the basic structure of the constitution and hence the entire legislation was declared as unconstitutional.
Key Legal Findings
- Only provisions relating to Fazil and Kamil were held unconstitutional.
- The doctrine of severability was applied under Article 13(2).
- The Madarsa Act continues to remain valid in substance.
- The High Court had declared the entire Act unconstitutional.
Conclusion
The Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that the Madarsa Act regulates the standard of education in Madarsas recognized by the Board and aligns with the State’s positive obligation to ensure students in recognized Madarsas attain a level of competency to participate in society and earn a living. Article 21-A and the RTE Act must be interpreted consistently with the right of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. The Madarsa Board, with State approval, can enact regulations to ensure religious minority institutions impart secular education while maintaining their minority character.
The Court found the Madarsa Act within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 25 of List III, but provisions regulating higher education degrees like Fazil and Kamil were deemed unconstitutional due to conflict with the UGC Act, enacted under Entry 66 of List I. The judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 22 March 2024 was set aside, and the petitions were disposed of accordingly. Any pending applications were also disposed of.
High Court Findings
The Hon’ble High Court declared the Madarsa Act, 2004, unconstitutional, finding it violative of the principle of secularism, which is part of the Constitution’s basic structure, and infringing upon Articles 14, 21, and 21-A. It also contravened Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. The validity of Section 1(5) of the R.T.E. Act was not addressed, as the Madarsa Act was already deemed ultra vires.
The State Government was directed to integrate the student studying in the madarsa into recognized regular schools, ensuring sufficient seats or new schools as needed. Additionally, the State must ensure that children aged 6 to 14 are not excluded from admission to recognized institutions. The writ petition Writ-C No. 6049 of 2023 was allowed, and other related cases were returned to the appropriate courts.
Supreme Court Vs High Court Approach
| Aspect | Supreme Court Approach | High Court Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Interpretation Style | Pragmatic and balanced | Rights-based and structural |
| Focus | Legislative competence, minority rights, and education access | Secularism and fundamental rights |
| Outcome | Partial invalidation (Fazil & Kamil) | Entire Act declared unconstitutional |
| Legal Basis | Articles 21-A, 29, 30 and Entry 25 List III | Articles 14, 21, 21-A and basic structure doctrine |
The Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Court adopted distinct approaches in addressing the constitutional validity of the respective statutes. The Supreme Court adopted a pragmatic approach, balancing the State’s legislative competence, minority rights under Articles 29 and 30, and obligations under Article 21-A and the RTE Act. It upheld the Act’s regulatory framework for secular education in madarsas while invalidating provisions conflicting with the UGC Act.
On the contrary, Hon’ble the High Court approached the Act from a rightsbased perspective, emphasizing secularism as part of the Constitution’s basic structure and invoking Articles 14, 21, and 21-A to declare the Act unconstitutional. Its approach was rooted in safeguarding secular principles and ensuring uniformity in the educational framework for all children.
