NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, and set aside the Allahabad High Court's verdict that had declared the Act unconstitutional.
“We have upheld the constitutional validity, except to a small extent. The High Court erred in holding that the statute must be struck down if it violates secularism,” a three-judge bench of the apex court, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, said while reading out the verdict in open court.
However, the top court held that the Madarsa Act, to the extent that it regulates higher education in relation to fazil and kamil degrees, is in conflict with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act. In this limited respect, it was deemed unconstitutional.
The bench, which also comprised Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, had reserved its verdict on October 22. It stated that the State has the authority to regulate educational standards.
“The regulations concerning the quality of education do not interfere with the administration of madrasas. The Act does not directly interfere with the day-to-day administration of madrasas. It is consistent with the State's positive obligation to ensure that children receive adequate education,” the Supreme Court said in its judgment.
The court also clarified that both the Board and the State government have sufficient powers to prescribe educational standards in this regard.
The Supreme Court had, on October 22, reserved its verdict on a batch of pleas challenging the Allahabad High Court judgment, which declared the 2004 Uttar Pradesh law on madrasas unconstitutional on the grounds of it violating the principle of secularism.
The apex court had earlier heard arguments and submissions from a battery of lawyers representing eight petitioners, as well as Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K.M. Nataraj, who appeared for the Uttar Pradesh government, over the course of two days before reserving the verdict.
During the hearing, the Uttar Pradesh government had defended its law on madrasas, asserting that the Allahabad High Court should not have struck down the entire Act as unconstitutional.
The bench had also directed a specific query to ASG Nataraj, asking whether he stood by the validity of the law in its entirety, including the provisions that allow the State to regulate madrasas.
"Are you standing by the validity of the Act?" the CJI had asked the law officer at the outset of his submissions on the batch of pleas against the High Court's verdict.