Understanding The Debate: Supreme Court’s Stay Order On Uttar Pradesh Madarsa Act

In April 2004, the Supreme Court of India gave a stay order to a decision made by the Allahabad High Court that had struck down the Uttar Pradesh Madarsa Education Act 2004 by declaring it unconstitutional. It was emphasised by the court that the act was regulatory in nature, to improve the quality of education and not intrude the secularism. The court also acknowledged that the state had a legitimate concern about the issue of providing quality and universal education, but the question was whether the entire act should have been invalidated. With the fate of the Act hanging, the dates for further hearings in this case are set. This development has caused important implications for Madarsa education, educational reforms and the scenario of constitutional law in Uttar Pradesh.

Introduction

The Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Education Act 2004, regulated the Madrasa education in the state and primarily focused on Islamic studies while introducing some secular subjects for example, maths, science and social studies. In 2024 this act was challenged on constitutional grounds that claimed the act was violating secularism and failing to meet the quality of accepted educational standards. The Allahabad High Court sparked a controversy about Madrasa education and its role within the confines of the state’s broader educational system. With the Hon’ble  Supreme Court intervening in the stay order, the focus has shifted back to the legal debate around the constitutional balance of religious education and public education.

Observations Of The Supreme Court On The Madrasa Act

The recent stay order of the Supreme Court on the ruling of Allahabad High Court has showcased the balance in the approach of the Apex Court towards state regulation and religious education. In its observations, the Supreme Court brought to light that while there may be a legitimate interest of the state in making sure of the quality of education for students, it should be recognised whether striking down an entire act for the sake of this one interest is an appropriate remedy or not. The Court’s focus was on how the act is regulatory and was incorporating secular subjects to provide for a holistic education rather than undermining secularism.

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud acknowledged the need for getting Madrasa students into a more mainstream educational system, especially in subjects like maths and science. However, there was a concern of shifting over 17,00,00 students into regular schools, this prompted the Court to put a stay on the High Court’s ruling. This observation was important as it underscored the necessity to balance the freedom of religion with the provisions of the Constitution like the right to education while also ensuring that the minority institutions comply when it comes to quality and universal educational standards. The upcoming hearings of the court will be on the deeper prospects of the balance between state regulation and the rights of minorities in the sector of education.

Legal Provisions Of The Case

The legal conversation surrounding this act centred on the key constitutional provisions like Article 14 – Right To Equality, Article 21 A – Right To Education And Article 25 – Freedom Of Religion. The Ruling Of The Allahabad High Court Stated That The Madrasa Violated These Provisions. It particularly criticised the lack of quality and a lack of universal appeal in the system of education as it was mandated by the RTE Act of 2012. This particular judgement also talked about the concerns that the act failed to align the standards of secularism with the requirement of the Indian Constitution.

In contrast, the Supreme Court’s ruling on the stay points towards a broader meaning of these legal provisions. The Apex court said that while secularism is pertinent, the regulatory powers of the state over minority institutions are equally vital to make sure that the Madrasas provide for a quality education. The Supreme Court also took reference to Article 30 which grants minorities the right to secure and administer educational institutions. The pull between the constitutional provision and the broader agenda of educational reform was the centre of this case. It is expected that future hearings will explore more of this balance between religious freedom and state regulation in the realm of education.

Leading Case Laws

Several judgements are relevant to the ongoing conversation around the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Education Act, here are a few of them for a better understanding of the case.

One prominent case is of TMA Pai Foundation v. State Of Karnataka (2002). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case ruled that the minority possess the right to administer their educational institutions under the provision of Article 30 of the Constitution. However, this particular Right is subject to reasonable regulation by the state to make sure that the educational standards and student’s interests are protected.

Pramati Educational And Cultural Trust v. Union Of India (2014), another relevant case where the court examined the RTE Act’s applicability to minority institutions and ruled that minority schools are exempted from particular provisions of the Right To Education Act. This case is likely to be revisited as the Supreme Court continues to explore whether or not the UP Madrasa Act is in alignment with the constitutional principles and regulations of education.

In addition to these, there was also a case of Aruna Roy v. Union Of India(2002), in this case, the court agreed that religious teachings should not jeopardise the secular fabric of the education system. The Madrasa Act heavily draws from these precedents as the Honourable Supreme Court must come to a decision, on whether or not the regulatory measures in the Act strike as constitutional.
Apart from the cases mentioned above, there was a case of Jigya Yadav v. CBSE. Although focused on CBSE, it discusses the Rights concerning education, to read more about this case click here .

FAQs:

1.    What is the UP Madrasa Act all about?

The Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Education Act was enacted to improve the functioning of the Madrasa education in the states. Madrasas are Islamic institutions of education that have their focus on religious teachings, but the act sought to involve more modern and secular academia in their curriculum. The aim of this inclusion was to give the students a well-rounded, quality education by introducing universal subjects like mathematics, science, and social studies along with their religious teachings like Islamic studies. The goal was for this to equip students with the necessary skills needed to walk alongside and compete with the broader educational sectors and job sectors.

This act also set a regulatory structure for the operations of Madrasa that included the qualifications for the teacher, a more standardised curriculum and a measure for accountability to ensure a good quality education. The end goal was to set Madrassa education on the same race track that the state’s broader educational policies ran on. To achieve this while also respecting the cultural practises and the religious conventions, was the Act’s major goal.

However, controversies have always surrounded the Act. Critics have argued that it intervenes with the freedom of religion of people, specifically in terms of how the Madrasas, as minority institutions are administered and governed. This Act has faced many legal challenges with the Allahabad High Court striking it down and claiming it unconstitutional in 2024. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court put a stay on this ruling while maintaining the purpose of the Act as regulatory and claiming that it was not in violation of the secular principles.

2.    Why was this act declared as unconstitutional?

The UP Madrasa act was declared as unconstitutional by the High Court of Allahabad in 2024 because of the concerns arising around the violation of constitutional provisions related to educational rights and secularism. The primary argument that the Act faced was that it infringed upon Article 25 of the Constitution which guarantees a religious freedom by the regulation of religious minority institutions like the Madrasa. The critics argued about the intervention of government in the management, curriculum, and the ongoing administration of Madrasa saying that it interfered with the minority’s rights to be able to freely establish and administer their educational institutions as given under Article 30.

In addition to this, the Act got criticised for not fulfilling the standards of the Right To Education Act, which ensured free and compulsory education to children. The court found out that the Act had failed to properly provide for quality and universal education that RTE mandated for all of the students, regardless of the type of educational institution that they were associated with . This was seen to be creating a disparity amongst the quality standard of education that was offered in Madrasas in comparison with other schools of the state.

By striking the Act down, the Court essentially ruled that state cannot impose regulations that were to compromise the religious autonomy of Madrasas or failed in upholding the standards of quality and secular education which ended up making the act unconstitutional.

3.    What was said by Supreme Court in its stay order?

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its stay order on the Allahabad High Court’s ruling, was seen emphasising that the purpose of the Act was mainly to provide regulation and not to intend infringement upon the religious rights. The Apex Court also observed that the state had the authority to look over the standards of the education in different institutions, including the Madrasa to be sure of the quality of education for all students. The court noted down that the regulatory structure intended to alter and modernise the curriculum of Madrassa by inculcating a few new introductions in its secular subjects like mathematics, social studies and science without compromising on the front of religious teachings.

Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that the act was not in violation of Article 25 – Freedom of Religion and Article 30 – Rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions, of the Constitution. The court also acknowledged all the concerns that were raised by the petitioners while maintaining that the regulatory provisions intended on ensuring that the students of Madrasa received the kind of education that would help them grow and integrate into the mainstream opportunities of education and employment.

The stay order temporarily reinstated the Uttar Pradesh, Madrasa Education Act that allowed the government of the state to continue regulating Madrasas until a final judgement is passed. The decision of the Court highlights the balance between the state’s role in looking after the educational standards and safeguarding the religious freedom of its people.

4.    What Constitutional provisions are involved in this case?

This case surrounded several key constitutional provisions that primarily focused on religious freedom and the rights of minority, educational institutions. The following provisions are centres of this argument.

• Article 25, Freedom Of Religion- This provision gives a guarantee of freedom to practice, profess and propagate religion. In the subtext of the Madrasa Act, the critics have argued that state intervening in the curriculum and management of the Madrasa interferes with their right to provide a religious education of their choice. They contend that this Act has restricted their autonomy in how the religious teachings are imparted.
• Article 30, rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions- Article 30(1) precisely gives minorities the right to establish and administer their own educational institutions based on their religion or language. The core issue of the case is whether or not the Madrasa Act infringed upon this Right by letting the government regulate Madrasas that are considered as minority institutions. The High Court of Allahabad struck this Act down on these grounds and stated that it overstepped the bounds of state regulation.
• Article 21 A, Right To Education- this provision, necessitates, free and compulsory education for children of ages 6 to 14. The state argued that regulating Madras ensured that they meet the required standards of quality in education, especially in the subjects that are non-religious and aligned them with the higher agendas of universal education under the Right To Education Act.

The tension around this case revolved in balancing the religious autonomy with the responsibility of the state to make sure a modern standardised education system is set up that complies with the constitutional requirements while also respecting the Rights of the religious minorities

5.    When will the final hearing take place?

The final hearing for this case of UP Madrasa Act is scheduled for the second week of July 2024, according to the latest updates of the Supreme Court.

To gain more insight about children’s legal rights and education click here to read an article on juvenile justice, even though the focus is on juvenile justice this article provides insightful legal issues that intersect with the current discussion on the Madarsa Act.

Conclusion

The intervention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the UP Madrasa Act highlighted the complexities of balancing norms of religious education while looking after state regulation and upholding constitutional values. While the ruling of Allahabad High Court aimed at ensuring the Madrasa education was met with universal standards, the stay order from the Supreme Court reflects on the concerns about the practical implementation of dismantling the Madrasa’s education system. The fate of the Madrasa Act will definitely set a prominent precedent for reforms in the sector of education across India, especially in the institutions that encompass religious minorities.