New Delhi: In a major relief to madrasas in Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutional validity of the 2004 state law regulating the Muslim minority educational institutions holding that a statute cannot be struck down on the ground of violation of basic structure of constitution.
Setting aside the high court verdict quashing the 2004 law on the ground that it was violative of the principle of secularism, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said, “The Madrasa Act (Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004) is within the legislative competence of the state legislature and traceable to Entry 25 of List III (of the constitution)”.
The path-breaking verdict, which overturned an Allahabad High Court decision, would benefit over 17 lakh students studying in over 16,000 madrasas recognised by the Uttar Pradesh Board of madrasas education under the state law.
“The Madrasas Act is consistent with the positive obligation of the state to ensure that students studying in recognised madarsas attain a level of competency which will allow them to effectively participate in society and earn a living,” reads the verdict.
The CJI, who authored the 70-page verdict on behalf of the bench, said the provisions of the madrasa Act seek to “regulate” madrasas which are educational institutions run by a religious minority.
“There is a distinction between 'religious instruction' and 'religious education'. While the madrasas 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,” Justice Chandrachud said.
Mere fact that the education, which is sought to be regulated, included some religious teachings or instructions, did not automatically push the legislation outside the legislative competence of the state, the verdict outlined.
Striking down the state law, the high court had ordered the closure of such institutions and directed the state government to accommodate such students in a formal schooling system.
The apex court said a statute could be declared ultra vires (invalid) on two grounds -- being beyond the ambit of the legislative competence or violating fundamental rights or any other Constitutional provision.
The bench observed that the High Court erred in holding that a statute is bound to be struck down if it is violative of the basic structure. Invalidation of a statute on the grounds of violation of secularism has to be traced to express provisions of the Constitution. Further, the fact that the state legislature has established a Board to recognise and regulate madrasa education is not violative of Article 14. The Madrasa Act furthers substantive equality.
