NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Tuesday said that minorities have no absolute right to administer educational institutions, while upholding the validity of Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004 – a decision that will clear the uncertainty hanging over 13,364 madrassas in the state with over 12 lakh students since March 22 when Allahabad high court had struck down the Act terming it “non-secular” and hence “unconstitutional”.
An SC bench of CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said that the high court erred in quashing the statute and ordering shifting of the students to regular schools under UP Education Board.
State legislation can’t seek to regulate higher edu, says SC
The SC bench ruled that the right of minorities to administer educational institutions was not absolute and the board could exercise its regulatory power with approval of the state govt to ensure that religious minority institutions imparted secular education of a requisite standard without destroying their minority character.
Writing the 70-page judgment, CJI Chandrachud said, “The right of minorities to administer educational institutions is not absolute. The state has an interest in maintaining the standards of education in minority educational institutions and may impose regulation as a condition for grant of aid or recognition.”
The CJI said the state has a constitutional obligation to strike a balance between two objectives – ensuring the standard of excellence of minority educational institutions and preserving the right of minorities to establish and administer its educational institutions.
“State can regulate aspects of the standards of education such as the course of study, qualification and appointment of teachers, health and hygiene of students, and facilities for libraries. Regulations pertaining to standards of education or qualification of teachers do not directly interfere with the administration of the recognised madrassas. Such regulations are designed to prevent maladministration of an educational institution,” the SC said.
It said the 2004 Act did not interfere with the day-to-day administration of madrassas as its objective was regulatory in nature for improvement of academic excellence of students. “The Madarsa Act is consistent with the positive obligation of the state to ensure that students studying in recognised madrassas attain a minimum level of competency which will allow them to effectively participate in society and earn a living,” it said.
However, the SC said the Madarsa Act, to the extent to which it sought to regulate higher education, including degrees of Fazil (postgraduate) and Kamil (undergraduate), was beyond the legislative competence of the state legislature as it conflicted with the UGC Act, which governs the standards for higher education. A state legislation cannot seek to regulate higher education in contravention of the UGC Act, it said.
The SC severed conferment of Fazil and Kamil degrees from the functioning of the Madarsa Board and said it could continue to regulate madrassa education till Class 12. “The mere fact that the education which is sought to be regulated includes some religious teachings or instruction does not automatically push the legislation (Madarsa Act) outside the legislative competence of the state,” it said.
Referring to Article 28(3) which prohibits students in state recognised and state-funded or aided educational institutions from being compelled to receive religious instructions, the CJI said, “The corollary to this provision is that religious instruction may be imparted in an educational institution which is recognised by the state, or which receives state aid but no student can be compelled to participate in religious instruction in such an institution.”