Why the Supreme Court upheld constitutional validity of UP Madarsa Act, 2004

Why did Allahabad HC quash the Act?

On March 22, the Allahabad HC struck down the Act in its entirety, saying it violated the basic structure of the Constitution as the law flouted the principles of secularism. In Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973), the SC had held that Parliament cannot alter the Constitution’s basic structure, and in S R Bommai v Union of India (1994) had ruled that secularism is part of the basic structure.

The HC said the Act made it compulsory for students to study Islam and more modern subjects were made optional. It held that the state cannot “discriminate” by providing education based on religion.

The HC also stated that the Act violated the right to free and compulsory education under Article 21A of the Constitution by denying “quality” education in modern subjects.

It said the Board’s powers to grant higher education degrees such as Fazil and Kamil — equivalent to a bachelor’s and a postgraduate degree respectively — under the Act conflicted with the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (UGC Act), a central law that takes precedence in matters related to education.

Why did SC uphold the Act?

The SC set aside the HC’s verdict on three main grounds:

BASIC STRUCTURE TEST NOT NEEDED: Constitutional amendments are tested against the basic structure doctrine, not an ordinary legislation.

In its ruling, the SC underlined this, citing its decision in Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain (1975), which pertained to an amendment to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, that was enacted to reverse the Allahabad HC’s ruling to disqualify Indira from participating in elections. The amendment was challenged for violating the Constitution’s basic structure. However, the SC held that the argument that the amendment violates the basic structure was too “vague and indefinite” to determine the validity of an ordinary law.

In the Madarsa Act case, the SC said for a law to be struck down for violating the principle of secularism, it must be “traced to express provisions [Articles] of the Constitution”.

STATE CAN REGULATE MADARSAS: The SC said so long as the regulation is “reasonable and rational”, states can regulate aspects of education in minority institutions without violating their rights to handle the administration. The Madarsa Act does this “without depriving the educational institutions of their minority character,” the SC ruled.

The court also referred to Entry 25 of the Concurrent list in the Constitution which allows both states and the Centre to enact laws on the subject of “Education”. It said this must be given the “broadest meaning” and includes institutions that provide religious education.

RIGHT TO EDUCATION & MINORITY INSTITUTIONS: In 2014, the SC heard a challenge to the constitutionality of Article 21A. The court held that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2006 (RTE Act) must not apply to minority institutions as it may destroy their minority character.

The SC in the Madarsa Act case referred to this decision and held that the HC had erred by striking down the law for violating the right to education. The court also stated that minority institutions such as madarsas have a right to provide religious education and handle their own administration under Article 30.

Why did SC strike down higher education provisions of the Act?

The SC ruled that a part of the Madarsa Act’s Section 9 — which allows the Board to prescribe coursework, conduct exams, and grant degrees to those who have finished Kamil and Fazil courses — is contrary to the UGC Act. Under Section 22 of the UGC Act, only universities which have been established under a central or state Act or have been “deemed” to be universities by the UGC can grant degrees. Therefore, the SC struck down a part of the Section 9.