UP Madrasa Act: Supreme Court Asks Why High Court Held Regulatory Statute 'Unconstitutional'

The top court while hearing the arguments questioned why the high court held  the Act unconstitutional when it was broadly a regulatory statute.

CJI Chandrachud said that the state govt also has a vital interest in ensuring that all children receiving primary and secondary education must get basic education to become worthy citizens

The Supreme Court on Monday resumed hearing the petitions challenging the Allahabad High Court order striking down the 'Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004' as unconstitutional. The top court while hearing the arguments questioned why the high court held  the Act unconstitutional when it was broadly a regulatory statute.

 

A bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra heard the matter and posed several questions to the counsels appearing for state of Uttar Pradesh as well as the petitioners.

CJI DY Chandrachud asked: "Why did the High Court hold it unconstitutional? The act is very clear, it prescribed the conditions of service, the making of regulations, etc and its broadly a regulatory statute."

 

It maybe recalled, that in March 2024, the Allahabad High Court had struck down the 'UP Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004' as unconstitutional and held that the a Secular State has no power to create a Board for religious education or to establish a Board for school education only for a particular religion and philosophy associated with it.

 

The high court bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi said that state's foremost duty is to provide education to children which is secular in nature and the state cannot discriminate and provide different types of education to children belonging to different religions.

 

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy appearing for appellants told the top court today that the high court verdict conflates regulations with the religious instructions and holds that the Act violates the secular structure.

CJI DY Chandrachud asked Guruswamy if the Madarsa Board gets any funds from the State government.

Guruswamy informed the court that the Board does not receive any funds from the government. She further told the court that the conflation of regulation with religious instructions is patently wrong as the board provides a general education.

"The board is not the authority which provides education, it is only a regulatory mechanism to ensure the quality...they may also have a vital interest in ensuring that young children get broad based education apart from religious instructions to lead a proper life." CJI remarked and further asked if the board has specified other branches of education. The CJI also questioned if the Madrasas can use any discretion in deciding what the students are taught.

Guruswamy told the court that education institutions also ensure that apart from religious instructions there are subjects like maths, physics, science etc and the board is ensuring that the discretion of Madrasa is removed.

CJI Chandrachud at this point said that the state govt also has a vital interest in ensuring that all children receiving primary and secondary education must get basic education to become worthy citizens

While showing the syllabus of madrasas and books prescribed, Guruswamy said that Sanskrit is also being taught in the madrasa.

CJI Chandrachud after hearing other counsels remarked that one thing is very clear that the State Act does not make the madrasa board a university, the conferment of degrees by the board will be in contravention of the UGC Act. He further noted that the Court has to see what degrees can be conferred by Madrasa in view of UGC Act. 

Guruswamy informed the court that the violation does not exist, and the Madrasas are not conferring degrees.

Senior Advocate MR Shamshad submitted that the high court judgment is 70% based on secularism. Shamshad further argued that the High Court has gone on to interpret the term religious education to mean religious instructions.

CJI Chandrachud remaked that a law per se regulating an institution of a community does not ipso facto violate the principle of secularism. He also cited the example of Hindu Endowment Acts and said that it does not offend Secularism.