The Uttar Pradesh Madarsa Education Act, 2004 (UP Madarsa Act) was introduced to regulate and standardize Islamic religious education in Madrasas across Uttar Pradesh. The Act aims to integrate mainstream educational standards with traditional religious teachings, providing a formal structure and state support to these institutions.

Further, the creation of the UP Board of Madarsa Education took place, which oversees the curriculum design, examinations, and certification for Madrasas throughout the state. This board ensures uniformity in educational standards and provides state recognition to the qualifications obtained from these Madrasas.

Under the Act, Madrasas are required to follow a curriculum that includes both religious and general subjects. This blended approach aims to give students a balanced education, equipping them with knowledge and skills applicable to both religious and secular fields. The inclusion of general subjects ensures that Madrasa students are not isolated from mainstream educational opportunities.

The Act acknowledges Madrasa qualifications such as Fazil and Kamil, equating them to undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. This recognition facilitates the integration of Madrasa graduates into higher education and employment sectors, making their qualifications comparable to those from mainstream educational institutions.

To maintain educational standards, the Act empowers the state to inspect and regulate Madrasas. This oversight is intended to ensure that the institutions meet the required educational standards while respecting their religious nature. While aligning with state educational norms, the Act also respects the religious identity of Madrasas. It allows these institutions to continue providing Islamic religious education, ensuring that their religious teachings are not compromised while complying with state regulations.

The constitutionality of the UP Madarsa Act was contested in the case of Anjum Qadri and Anr vs Union of India & Ors. Petitioners argued that the Act violated secularism and equality principles by permitting religious education in state-regulated institutions. They claimed that the Act conflicted with modern educational standards and should be nullified under the basic structure doctrine. The petitioners posited that the provisions allowing for religious education contradicted secular principles and the right to equality, questioning whether a regular law could grant special provisions to religious institutions without altering the Constitution's secular nature.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the UP Madarsa Act infringed on the Constitution's secular principles and needed to be tested against the basic structure doctrine, typically applied to constitutional amendments.

The Supreme Court ruled that the basic structure doctrine, applicable to constitutional amendments, was not necessary for the UP Madarsa Act since it is an ordinary law. The court highlighted that only amendments affecting core constitutional principles are subject to the basic structure test, not regular legislation.

The court determined that the Act did not violate secularism, as it respected minority rights under Articles 25 to 30, allowing religious communities to manage their institutions. The judgment noted that secularism involves the state's equal respect for all religions, not the exclusion of religious education within minority institutions.

The court upheld that as long as the regulations imposed on Madrasas are "reasonable and rational," they do not infringe on minority rights. The Act allows Madrasas to offer religious instruction while maintaining educational standards, aligning with the Constitution's guarantees of religious freedom and educational rights. Additionally, the state's role in supervising Madrasas to ensure they meet general educational standards without interfering with their religious character was affirmed.

The court underscored the significance of Article 21A (Right to Education) alongside Articles 25 to 30, asserting that religious and educational rights can coexist. The judgment recognized the UP Madarsa Act as a balanced approach that supports minority rights while ensuring quality education.

This judgment reinforces the autonomy of minority institutions, affirming their right to provide religious education without breaching secular principles or the right to equality. The Supreme Court's decision strengthens the constitutional protection of minority rights while maintaining a balanced approach to educational quality and regulatory oversight. The ruling supports the coexistence of religious freedom and state supervision, highlighting a constitutional vision that respects diversity within a unified framework.

Written By: Ria Mahajan