Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's judgment striking down the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 in its entirety. It held that a statute cannot be invalidated for violating the basic structure (secularism) as such, that the Act is a valid regulatory law within Entry 25 of List III that furthers the State's interest in educational standards consistently with Articles 14, 21-A and 30, but that its provisions regulating the higher-education degrees Fazil and Kamil conflict with Section 22 of the UGC Act and are severable and invalid.
Issues
- Whether ordinary legislation can be struck down for violating the basic structure of the Constitution, and how a challenge founded on secularism must be framed.
- Whether the Madarsa Act violates secularism or Articles 14 and 21-A by recognising and regulating Madarsas that impart religious instruction.
- Whether the State legislature was competent under Entry 25 of List III to enact the Madarsa Act, given the argument that 'education' excludes religious instruction.
- Whether the provisions of the Madarsa Act regulating Fazil and Kamil degrees conflict with the UGC Act enacted under Entry 66 of List I.
- Whether the whole Act must fall if some provisions are invalid.
Provisions considered
- Sections 3, 9, 10 and 20, Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004The constitution of the Board and its functions and powers (prescribing courses, conducting examinations, granting recognition subject to standards of staff, equipment and buildings, inspection, framing regulations) were read as showing a regulatory statute aimed at standards of education in recognised Madarsas, not interference with their administration. (¶¶ 14, 17, 18, 21, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69)
- Section 9 (clauses (a), (e), (f), (g), (h), (j) and (o)) so far as they concern Fazil and Kamil, Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004To the extent they empower the Board to prescribe courses for, examine, and confer Fazil and Kamil degrees, these provisions regulate higher education and conflict with Section 22 of the UGC Act; held unconstitutional and severed. (¶¶ 98, 99, 103, 104)
- Section 22, University Grants Commission Act, 1956Only universities established by statute, deemed universities or institutions empowered by Parliament may confer degrees specified by UGC notification; the March 2014 UGC notification lists Fazil and Kamil, so a State Board cannot confer them. (¶¶ 95, 96, 97, 99)
- Entry 25 of List III and Entry 66 of List I, Seventh Schedule, Constitution of IndiaEntry 25 ('education') is read broadly and covers regulation of minority institutions that also impart religious instruction, so the Act is within State competence; but Entry 25 is subject to Entry 66, under which the UGC Act occupies the field of standards in higher education. (¶¶ 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 99)
- Article 28, Constitution of IndiaArticle 28 bars religious instruction only in institutions wholly maintained by State funds and protects students in recognised or aided institutions from compelled participation; it does not prevent the State from recognising institutions that impart religious instruction alongside secular education. (¶¶ 43, 86)
- Articles 21-A and 30, Constitution of IndiaArticle 21-A and the RTE Act must be read consistently with minorities' right to establish and administer institutions; the RTE Act expressly excludes Madarsas, and the State may regulate standards so that minority institutions impart secular education without losing minority character. (¶¶ 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 104)
- Section 1(5), Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009Noted that the RTE Act does not apply to Madarsas, which was one reason the High Court erred in holding the Madarsa Act violative of Article 21-A, and why no repugnancy arises. (¶¶ 75, 79, 89)
- Article 13(2), Constitution of IndiaA law is void only to the extent of contravention; the same severability principle applies to provisions invalid for want of legislative competence. (¶¶ 47, 101, 102)
Held
- A statute can be struck down only for lack of legislative competence or for violating Part III or another express provision of the Constitution; it cannot be invalidated simply for violating the basic structure. A challenge based on secularism must show breach of the constitutional provisions that embody secularism, and the High Court erred in holding otherwise. (¶¶ 47, 55, 73)
- The State may regulate standards of education in minority institutions, such as curriculum, teacher qualifications, examinations, health and facilities, as a condition of recognition, provided the regulation is reasonable, makes the institution an effective vehicle of education, and does not destroy its minority character or interfere with day-to-day administration. (¶¶ 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62)
- The Madarsa Act is regulatory legislation that improves standards in recognised Madarsas and lets students take Board examinations and pursue further education and employment; it does not interfere with day-to-day administration and is consistent with Article 30. (¶¶ 63, 65, 68, 69)
- Under positive secularism and substantive equality, the State may take active steps to place minority institutions on par with others; by ensuring that students in recognised Madarsas attain a level of competency to participate in society and earn a living, the Act furthers substantive equality and does not violate Article 14. (¶¶ 70, 71, 72, 73)
- The High Court erred in holding the Act violative of Article 21-A: the RTE Act excludes Madarsas, Article 30 protects minorities' right to run Madarsas imparting religious and secular education, and the Board and State have enough regulatory power to prescribe secular education of the requisite standard. (¶¶ 78, 79, 104)
- Religious instruction and religious education are distinct; that an institution imparts some religious instruction does not take its regulation outside 'education' in Entry 25 of List III. No Union entry is shown to be in conflict and no central law regulates Madarsas, so the challenge on legislative competence fails. (¶¶ 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90)
- Because Entry 25 of List III is subject to Entry 66 of List I and the UGC Act occupies the field of higher-education standards, the provisions of the Madarsa Act that regulate the Fazil and Kamil degrees conflict with Section 22 of the UGC Act and are beyond the State's competence. (¶¶ 92, 93, 94, 99)
- Applying the severability tests in R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla, the Fazil and Kamil provisions are severable: the legislature would have enacted the rest, which remains workable, and the Board's character is not altered. Only those provisions are invalid, and the High Court erred in striking down the entire Act. (¶¶ 100, 101, 102, 103, 104)
Result
High Court's judgment dated 22.03.2024 set aside; the Madarsa Act upheld except the provisions regulating higher-education degrees such as Fazil and Kamil, which are unconstitutional for conflict with the UGC Act; petitions disposed of accordingly.