Exemption for 12L+ students as SC upholds validity of UP madrassa Act, 2004 | India News – Times of India

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said minorities have no absolute right to run educational institutions, while upholding the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004 – a decision that will remove the uncertainty hanging over 13,364 madrassas in the state with over 12 lakh students since March 22, when the Allahabad High Court had struck down the law, terming it “non-secular” and thus “unconstitutional”.
An SC sofa from CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said the Supreme Court erred by quashing the statute and ordering the transfer of the students to regular schools under the UP Education Board.
State law cannot attempt to regulate higher education, says SC
The SC bench held that the right of minorities to manage educational institutions was not absolute and that the board could exercise its regulatory power with the approval of the State government to ensure that minority religious institutions provide secular education of the required standard without compromising their minority character destroy.
CJI Chandrachud wrote the 70-page judgment: “The right of minorities to run educational institutions is not absolute. The state has an interest in maintaining the standards of education.” minority educational institutions and may impose regulations as a condition for the provision of assistance or recognition.”
The CJI said the state has a constitutional obligation to strike a balance between two objectives: ensuring the quality of educational institutions for minorities and preserving the right of minorities to establish and manage their educational institutions.
“The state can regulate aspects of educational standards such as the subject of study, qualification and appointment of teachers, health and hygiene of students, and library facilities. Regulations relating to the standards of education or qualification of teachers do not directly interfere with the The administration of the recognized madrassas is intended to prevent mismanagement of an educational institution,” the SC said.
It said the 2004 law did not interfere with the day-to-day administration of madrassas as its purpose was regulatory in nature to improve the academic excellence of students. “The Madarsa Law is in line with the state’s positive obligation to ensure that students studying in recognized madrassas attain a minimum level of competence that enables them to participate effectively in society and earn a living,” said the report.
The SC, however, said that the Madarsa Act, insofar as it sought to regulate higher education, including the degrees of Fazil (postgraduate) and Kamil (undergraduate), was beyond the legislative purview of the state legislature as it was contrary to the UGC Act. , which regulates higher education standards. A state legislature cannot attempt to regulate higher education in violation of the UGC Act, the report said.
The SC separated the award of Fazil and Kamil degrees from the functioning of the Madarsa Board and said it could continue to regulate madrassa education up to class 12. “The mere fact that the education being regulated is a number of religious teachings or instructions does not automatically push the legislation (Madarsa Act) beyond the legislative jurisdiction of the state,” the report said.
Referring to Article 28(3), which prohibits students in state-recognized and state-funded or aided educational institutions from being forced to receive religious instruction, the CJI said: “The effect of this provision is that religious instruction may be imparted in an educational institution recognized by the State, or receiving State aid, but no student may be forced to participate in religious education in such an institution.”