Madrasas not a threat to constitutional values: SC

The top court said institutions imparting religious instructions are not an ‘anathema’ to constitutional values or the rule of law.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday highlighted the importance of institutions such as madrasas, vedic schools and Buddhist monasteries, asserting that in a pluralistic society where diverse cultures and religions coexist, such institutions should not be seen as a threat to constitutional principles.

The Supreme Court of India.

Even as it reserved its judgment on a series of petitions challenging the Allahabad high court ruling in March that declared the 2004 Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act unconstitutional, the top court said that institutions imparting religious instructions are not an “anathema” to constitutional values or the rule of law. Instead, the bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud emphasised that it is the responsibility of the State to regulate these institutions and ensure that children receive modern education alongside religious teachings, ultimately in the national interest.

Key observations: What SC said

“Ultimately, we have to see it through the broad sweep of the country. Religious instructions are there not just for the Muslims. It is there in Hindus, Sikhs, Christians etc. The country ought to be a melting pot of cultures, civilisations and religions. Let us preserve it that way. In fact, the answer to ghettoisation is to allow people to come to the mainstream and to allow them to come together. Otherwise, what we essentially would be doing is to keep them in silos,” remarked the bench, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

The bench added that flaws in the syllabus of madrasa system should not invalidate the entire Act, emphasising that the state has wide powers under existing laws to address any deficiencies through proper regulatory mechanisms. “But to throw out the entire Act is like throwing out the baby with bathwater,” it commented.

Acknowledging that religious educational institutions operate within the broader fabric of Indian society and should not be dismissed simply because they impart religious teachings, the court warned that all such institutions, including those teaching Hindu scriptures such as Vedas and Upanishads, would have to be shut if religious instructions are completely barred.

“Remember, what we decide in this case and in the context of Islam will apply to all religions across India... From vedic pathshalas to Buddhist monasteries to Jain schools,” it added.

On the second consecutive day of the hearing, the bench predominantly heard submissions of additional solicitor general (ASG) KM Nataraj, who appeared for the Uttar Pradesh government, a group of parties who had assailed the Madarsa Act before the high court, and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights.

Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Salman Khurshid, Menaka Guruswamy and MR Shamshad appeared for the petitioners opposing the high court judgment.

Uttar Pradesh government supports madrasa system

ASG Nataraj submitted that the state stands by its stand in the high court, and supports the statute even though it agrees with some parts of the March judgment in so far striking down a few provisions of the Madarsa Act is concerned. He added that the high court should have only struck down the provisions which are violative of the fundamental rights instead of nullifying the entire regulatory framework.

“As a state, you have wide powers to ensure basic quality of education. Nobody denies that power because it’s by virtue of a statue. Nobody deprives you of the power. This is what you said in the high court. While you defended the Act, you said you have wide powers to regulate them,” the bench responded. The 2004 Madarsa Act was enacted by the then ruling Samajwadi Party.

Senior counsel Guru Krishnakumar, appearing for one of the parties opposing madrasas, argued that the Act does not ensure secular education and is mostly focused on theological studies. He added that singling out the religious institution of one particular community for recognition was unconstitutional.

But the bench differed. It referred to the historical context of religious education across various faiths, including Hindu, Buddhist and Islamic traditions, adding that their historical and sociocultural significance cannot be denied.

The bench drew comparisons between madrasas and other religious institutions, highlighting that the issues concerning religious education are not unique to one community. Rather, the court’s concern was with the broader need for regulation across all religious educational institutions to ensure students are equipped for life in the modern world. The court further noted that validating the high court judgment would mean complete absence of oversight of such institutions.

Why single out madrasas?

Appearing for NCPCR, senior counsel Swarupama Chaturvedi contended that NCPCR has no objection if madrasa education is a supplement to the school education, but it cannot be an alternative.The bench questioned whether NCPCR adopted a similar stance against institutions of other religions after Chaturvedi claimed that the agency had submitted a report on the shortcomings of the madrasa system and had written to the states to inspect them.

“Has NCPCR issued a directive that across communities, that don’t send children to any monasteries, pathshalas...has NCPCR issued a directive that when children are sent to these institutes, then they must be taught science, maths etc? Why are you only concerned with madrasas? We would like to know if you have dealt with other institutes. Has NCPCR been even-handed in its treatment of all communities?” the bench asked. Chaturvedi sought time to get instructions and undertook to file an additional statement.

Criticising the high court judgment, Rohatgi argued that it was contrary to the principles of secularism by depriving minority students of their rights. He pointed out that students shouldn’t be forced into mainstream education.

“Secularism means -- live and let live,” the CJI said in response.

On Monday, the top court had barred the Centre and states from enforcing a series of orders issued by NCPCR to shift students from madrasas to government schools even as it emphasised that the State has a “vital interest” in ensuring that all children get quality and modern education.