The ruling comes after months of legal debates around the Act, initially aimed at establishing a structured framework for madrasa education in Uttar Pradesh. The Allahabad High Court had previously invalidated the Act, asserting that its provisions conflicted with the secular ethos enshrined in the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court bench disagreed, stating that the Act does not infringe upon constitutional secularism and instead provides a legal infrastructure for madrasas without compromising the rights of any community.
The Court clarified that a statute cannot be annulled solely based on an alleged violation of the “basic structure” of the Constitution. It emphasized that to challenge a law under secularism, there must be concrete evidence demonstrating an infringement on constitutional provisions tied directly to secularism, a threshold the Allahabad High Court’s judgment failed to meet. By focusing on administrative oversight and curriculum structuring, the Supreme Court ruled that the Act operates within the limits of legality and does not interfere with religious principles.
Uttar Pradesh's government enacted the 2004 Madrasa Education Act with the stated objective of modernizing madrasa curricula, introducing secular subjects alongside traditional religious studies. The law empowered the UP Board of Madarsa Education to standardize education in registered madrasas, oversee examination systems, and set guidelines for educational quality. Its advocates argue that the Act provides a necessary framework to bring educational parity between madrasas and other academic institutions.
Critics, however, have expressed concerns that the Act indirectly imposes government control over madrasas, fearing an erosion of religious autonomy. The petitioners in the Allahabad case argued that the Act effectively subordinated religious education to the state’s administrative machinery, thereby infringing upon the rights to religious freedom. They contended that compulsory registration and state-imposed curricula could compel madrasas to adopt secular values at odds with their religious missions.
Today’s ruling underscored the balance between educational administration and constitutional freedoms, emphasizing that the Act neither mandates the secularization of religious studies nor infringes upon religious identity. The Supreme Court highlighted that the Act simply facilitates the integration of general subjects, a measure seen by supporters as a means of broadening students’ future opportunities in higher education and employment.
In response to the decision, the Uttar Pradesh government welcomed the Supreme Court’s stance, with officials highlighting the Act as an essential part of broader educational reforms. They argue that the legislative framework provides pathways for madrasa students to join mainstream academic and professional tracks without abandoning their religious studies. This, they believe, could address longstanding educational inequities and promote social mobility.