Why in news
The Supreme Court upheld the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Education Board Act of 2004, allowing the state to regulate madrasa education.
However, it struck down provisions on higher education (Kamil and Fazil levels) for conflicting with national laws.
The Court found that the Act's provisions on higher education violated Entry 66 of the Union List, which gives the Union government exclusive authority over higher education.
The Court confirmed that the state can regulate madrasa education to ensure minimum standards, in line with Article 21A (right to education), without interfering in daily operations.
The judgment upheld Article 30, which grants minorities the right to establish and manage educational institutions.
However, this right is not absolute, and the state can impose regulations.
The Court interpreted Entry 25 of the Concurrent List included religious education in madrasas under the wider definition of “education,” allowing state regulation.
The ruling benefits over 17 lakh madrasa students in Uttar Pradesh.
The judgment was seen as a defense of secularism and minority rights, rejecting efforts to undermine madrasas through negative campaigns.
COMMENTS