Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of UP Madarsa Education Act
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, setting aside a previous judgment by the Allahabad High Court that had declared the Act unconstitutional.
This landmark decision by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra affirms the state’s authority to regulate educational standards in madrasas.
Ensuring Modern Education Standards in Madrasas
In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that while madrasas may continue religious education, they are not authorized to grant higher education degrees. This stipulation aligns with the University Grants Commission Act, which governs degree issuance in India. “We have upheld the validity of the UP madrassa law…to standardize the level of education being prescribed in madrasas,” the CJI noted.
The bench advised the Uttar Pradesh government to integrate madrasa students into formal schooling wherever possible, further underscoring that the Act is designed to ensure modern educational standards within madrasas while respecting religious instruction.
Preserving National Integration and Cultural Diversity
The Supreme Court’s decision highlighted the importance of secularism and the nation’s composite culture, urging that religious minorities not be isolated from mainstream education. “Secularism means—live and let live,” stated Chief Justice Chandrachud, adding that regulating madrasas supports India’s national interest and cultural cohesion.
The bench also addressed concerns about “ghettoisation,” advocating that mainstreaming madrasa education is essential to ensuring quality education and preserving India as a melting pot of various religions and cultures.
Reactions and Background
This decision overturns the Allahabad High Court’s March ruling, which had criticized the Act as violating secularism and recommended integrating madrasa students into the formal education system. The Supreme Court had temporarily stayed this judgment in April, providing relief to approximately 1.7 million madrasa students.
Legal representatives for the petitioners, including senior lawyers Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Salman Khurshid, argued that the High Court misunderstood the Act’s objectives, which aim to regulate rather than impose religious instruction. The Uttar Pradesh government supported the Act, insisting that state oversight was in the best interest of the students and aligned with national educational standards.
The Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies that the Act does not intend to undermine religious instruction but rather ensures that educational standards in madrasas meet the expectations of a modern, unified India.
