SC upholds validity of UP madrassa law, says it does not violate principle of secularism

NEW DELHI: In a major relief to madrassas in Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutional validity of the 2004 state law regulating the Muslim minority educational institutions and said a statute cannot be struck down on the ground of secularism.

The significant ruling, which overturned an Allahabad High Court decision, would benefit over 17 lakh students studying in over 16,000 madrassas recognised by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrassa education under the state law.

The high court had asked for the closure of such institutions and directed the state government to accommodate students in a formal schooling system.

The top court said a statute could be declared ultra vires on two grounds -- being beyond the ambit of the legislative competence or violating fundamental rights or any other Constitutional provision.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra therefore set aside the high court verdict quashing the 2004 law on the ground that it was violative of the principle of secularism.

"The madrassa Act (Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004) is within the legislative competence of the state legislature and traceable to Entry 25 of List III (of the constitution)," held the bench.

The top court, however, noted the 2004 law to the extent that it sought to regulate higher education, including the "degrees" of "Fazil" and "Kamil" (bachelor and postgraduate level degrees given by madrassas), was beyond the legislative competence of the state legislature as it conflicted provisions of the University Grant Commission (UGC) Act and was therefore unconstitutional.

"The UGC Act governs the standards for higher education and a state legislation cannot seek to regulate higher education, in contravention of the provisions of the UGC Act," it said.

The apex court noted that the high court had fallen into error and ended up "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" by striking down the entire madrassa law on the ground that conferment of such degrees have been held to be unconstitutional due to lack of legislative competence.

"The entire statute does not need to be struck down each time that certain provisions of the statute are held to not meet constitutional muster. The statute is only void to the extent that it contravenes the Constitution," it said.

The top court said the constitutional validity of a statute couldn't be challenged for the violation of the basic structure of the Constitution.

"The reason is that concepts such as democracy, federalism, and secularism are undefined concepts. Allowing courts to strike down legislation for violation of such concepts will introduce an element of uncertainty in our constitutional adjudication," pointed out the bench.

The top court noted it had recently accepted that a challenge to the constitutional validity of a statute for violation of the basic structure was a technical aspect because the infraction had to be traced to the express provisions of the Constitution.

"Hence, in a challenge to the validity of a statute for violation of the principle of secularism, it must be shown that the statute violates provisions of the Constitution pertaining to secularism," it said.

Emphasising that the state had an interest in maintaining the standards of education in minority educational institutions and their affiliation or recognition, the bench noted the government secured the academic interests of students studying in such institutions to pursue higher education.

It also referred to Article 30, which provides that all minorities, whether based on religion or language, have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

The bench said the constitutional scheme allowed the state to strike a balance between two objectives – ensuring the standard of excellence of minority educational institutions and preserving the right of the minority to establish and administer its educational institution.

"The madrassa Act is consistent with the positive obligation of the state to ensure that students studying in recognised madrassas attain a level of competency which will allow them to effectively participate in society and earn a living," it held.

It said that Article 21A of the Constitution and the Right to Education Act have to be read consistently with the right of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

"The board with the approval of the state government can enact regulations to ensure that religious minority institutions impart secular education of a requisite standard without destroying their minority character," it added.

The CJI, who authored the verdict on behalf of the bench, said the provisions of the madrassa Act seek to "regulate" madrassas which are educational institutions run by a religious minority.

"There is a distinction between 'religious instruction' and 'religious education'. While the madrassas do impart religious instruction, their primary aim is education. Legislative entries must be given their widest meaning, and their ambit also extends to ancillary subjects which may be comprehended within the entry," he said.

Mere fact that the education, which is sought to be regulated, included some religious teachings or instruction, did not automatically push the legislation outside the legislative competence of the state, said the apex court.