The Uttar Pradesh government, on October 22, defended its legislation regulating madrasas, asserting before the Supreme Court that the Allahabad High Court erred in declaring the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 as unconstitutional. The state government claimed that the law was enacted to ensure the quality of education in madrasas, in line with constitutional principles, and should not have been invalidated in its entirety.
During the hearing, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, along with Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, directly questioned Additional Solicitor General K M Natraj, representing the state government, about the government’s stance on the law. “Are you standing by the validity of the Act?” the CJI inquired as Natraj began his submissions.
Natraj affirmed the state’s commitment to upholding the law, which governs the operation of madrasas across Uttar Pradesh. “I support the validity of the Act,” Natraj responded, adding, “The constitutionality of the law was struck down, and we want to clarify our position. We are defending the legislation, and the state cannot deviate from its stand.”
He further emphasised that while the government had not initially filed a special leave petition (SLP) against the High Court’s verdict, it remained firm in its support for the law.
The 2004 Act was designed to regulate madrasas, ensuring they provided quality education alongside religious teachings. On March 22, 2024, the Allahabad High Court declared the Act unconstitutional, stating it violated the principle of secularism. The court’s judgment called for madrasa students to be integrated into the formal schooling system. However, the state government maintained that striking down the entire law was unnecessary and an overreach.
Natraj, addressing the Supreme Court bench, argued, “The entire legislation need not be struck down. The issue is not one of legislative competence but of fundamental rights, and it is incorrect to invalidate the law in its entirety.”
He further pointed out that under Section 20 of the madrasa law, the state holds the authority to ensure basic educational standards in madrasas, and if those standards are not met, the government can intervene.
The Supreme Court bench appeared to agree with this interpretation, with CJI Chandrachud noting that as a state, Uttar Pradesh has “wide powers” to regulate educational quality in madrasas. “If the basic level of education is not being followed, the state always has the authority to intervene,” the Chief Justice remarked.
Earlier in the day, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing a litigant, also challenged the High Court’s ruling, asserting that it violated fundamental rights. Referring to the court’s suggestion that madrasa students be moved to regular schools, Rohatgi stated, “My fundamental right is violated as I will not be receiving religious instructions.”
He emphasised that hundreds of students rely on madrasas for religious education, and secularism does not mean forcing students out of these institutions.
The Supreme Court had previously provided interim relief to madrasa students on April 5, staying the High Court’s judgment, which would have impacted nearly 17 lakh students across the state. The hearing on the matter continues, with the state government steadfast in its defence of the 2004 Act.
The next phase of the hearing is expected to delve deeper into the constitutionality of the law and the balance between secularism and the rights of religious educational institutions, as the Uttar Pradesh government continues to advocate for the regulation of madrasas while ensuring compliance with constitutional mandates.
Comments