New Delhi: During a public discussion on “Supreme Court’s Judgement on Madrasas and Its Implications” held at the headquarters of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, Dr. Sadath Hussain, Executive Member of Markazi Taleemi Board, expressed his approval of the Supreme Court’s recent decision. He stated, “This is a welcome judgement that sets a strong precedent for protecting the educational rights of minorities.”
Dr. Hussain outlined the crucial points of the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Board Act 2004:
- Regulation of Madrasa Education: The Act provides a framework for regulating education in madrasas.
- State’s Positive Obligation: It aligns with the state’s responsibility to facilitate avenues for a decent living.
- Educational Rights of Minority Institutions: Article 21A and the Right to Education (RTE) Act must be interpreted to allow religious and linguistic minority institutions to impart education.
- Legislative Competence: The Act falls within the legislative powers of the state.
- Conflict with UGC Act: Provisions related to higher education degrees such as Fazil and Kamil were found to conflict with the UGC Act and were thus declared unconstitutional.
Dr. Hussain emphasised the need to understand the background of the case, noting increased state interference in madrasas in recent years, as seen in states like Rajasthan and Assam. He pointed out that these interventions often revolve around concerns about state funding of religious instruction, potentially violating secular principles under Article 28(1) of the Constitution, and questions about the alignment of madrasa education with Article 21A and the RTE Act, which ensure quality education for all children.
The SC, while upholding the UP Madrasa Board Act, rejected claims of violation under Article 14 and emphasised substantive equality – a concept that goes beyond mere equality of opportunity to include equality of outcomes in education, economy, and society. Dr. Hussain highlighted that this is a significant recognition for madrasas and other minority institutions.
On the issue of the RTE Act’s applicability, the SC ruled that it does not apply to minority educational institutions. Dr. Hussain explained, “The right to establish and administer educational institutions imparting both religious and secular education is protected under Article 30.”
He added that this judgement implies that both recognised and unrecognised madrasas can freely offer religious education, while the board and state retain the authority to regulate secular education standards in madrasas.
Addressing the issue of Alim and Fazil degrees, the SC noted that these represent higher levels of education and fall under the purview of the UGC Act, which governs standards for higher education. This implies that the UP Madrasa Board and other state boards offering such degrees may need to align them with college and university standards to comply with the UGC framework.
Dr. Hussain emphasised the positive impact of the judgement on the educational rights of minorities, describing it as a step towards safeguarding the autonomy and quality of education provided by madrasas while balancing the state’s role in regulating secular education.
