Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra in the case Anjum Kadari and another v. Union of India and others. observed that “In striking down the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004, the High Court prima facie misconstrued the provisions of the Act. The Act does not provide for any religious instruction. The object and purpose of the Statute is regulatory in character.

• Earlier, the Allahabad High Court (HC) struck down the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, as unconstitutional.

What is the Background of Anjum Kadari and another v. Union of India and Others?

• The petitions were filed by Anjum Kadari, Managers Association Madaris Arabiya (UP), All India Teachers Association Madaris Arabiya (New Delhi), Manager Association Arbi Madarsa Nai Bazar and Teachers Association Madaris Arabiya Kanpur.
• Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhi, appearing for the Managers Association Madaris, submitted that the Madarsa regime was a status quo that existed for 120 years which is now disrupted suddenly, affecting 17 lakh students and 10,000 teachers.
  • It is difficult to adjust these students and teachers to the State education system abruptly. Singvhi argued that the High Court did not examine the locus standi of the petitioner who challenged the Act. He termed the reasonings of the High Court "astonishing".
• He refuted the High Court's finding that modern subjects were not taught in the Madrasas and submitted that Maths, Science, Hindi, English etc are taught. He added that there was a Code in 1908 for Madarsas, followed by regulations of 1987 and the Act of 2004.
  • The Act was only regulatory, which the State was competent to enact as per Entry 25 of the Constitution's List 3.
• Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, submitted that the embargo of Article 28 will apply only if the institution is "wholly maintained out of State funds". He submitted that there are fully aided, partly aided and private Madarsas and all of them are regulated by the 2004 Act.
  • He then referred to Article 28(2) which reads "Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to an educational institution which is administered by the State but has been established under any endowment or trust which requires that religious instruction shall be imparted in such institution.
• Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar, appearing for a party who approached the High Court, refuted the petitioners' assertions that the Madarsas aren't wholly funded out of the State and that modern subjects were taught there.
  • Senior Advocate V Chitambaresh submitted that subjects like Maths, Science etc., were optional in Madarsas and hence, the students will "lag behind in the present day world". He submitted that the people running the institutions are "not experts in any particular field except their faith."
• When the bench sought the views of Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, he submitted, "Entanglement of religion is a suspect issue in any degree. And this is beyond the tolerable degree, especially as State aid is involved.
  • This is a matter requiring deliberation. "He supported the High Court's judgment by saying that it was not wrong on any aspect. AG also stated that the High Court's judgment does not have the impact of paralysing the Madarsas and the only consequence was that there won
• While declaring the law as Ultra Vires, the High Court Division comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi also directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to frame a scheme so that the students presently studying in Madrasas can be accommodated in the formal education system.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• "We are of the view that the issues raised in the petitions merit closer reflection. We are inclined to issue notice," the Court observed while issuing notice on five Special Leave Petitions filed against the High Court's judgment.
• A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandracuhd, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the High Court prima facie erred in understanding the provisions of the Act, which are regulatory in nature.

What is the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004?

• Overview of the Act:
  • The Act aimed to regulate and govern the functioning of madrasas (Islamic educational institutions) in the state of Uttar Pradesh.
    • It provided a framework for the establishment, recognition, curriculum, and administration of madrasas across Uttar Pradesh.
• Under this Act, the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education was established to oversee and supervise the activities of madrasas in the state.
• Concerns Regarding the Act:
  • Constitutional Violation:
    • The act has been deemed unconstitutional by the Allahabad HC, as it promotes education segregated along religious lines, contradicting the principle of secularism enshrined in the Indian Constitution and fundamental rights.
    • The Act's provisions were criticised for failing to ensure quality compulsory education up to the age of 14 years, as mandated by Article 21 A of the Constitution.
    • Concerns were raised regarding the exclusion of madrasas from the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009 potentially depriving students of universal and quality school education.
  • Limited Curriculum:
    • Upon examination of madrasa syllabi, the court noted a curriculum heavily focused on Islamic studies, with limited emphasis on modern subjects.
    • Students were required to study Islam and its doctrines to progress, with modern subjects often included as optional or offered minimally.
  • Conflict with Higher Education Standards:
    • The Act was deemed to conflict with Section 22 of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, 1956, raising questions about its compatibility with higher education standards.
• High Court Ruling:
  • The Allahabad HC declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 unconstitutional due to violations of secular principles and fundamental rights.
    • It directed the state government to accommodate madrasa students in recognised regular schools and raised concerns about the limited curriculum focused on Islamic studies.
  • The ruling highlighted potential adverse effects on students' access to quality education and prompted legal arguments regarding constitutional violations.

What are the Constitutional Provisions Regarding Education in India?