The court’s interpretation of secularism aligns with India’s pluralistic ideals, which view diversity as a strength rather than a challenge to governance
Mohammad Alamullah | Clarion India
NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court ruling on Tuesday upholding the constitutional validity of the UP Madrasa Education Act is a significant victory for secularism and minority rights in the country. The apex court’s overturning of a decision by the Allahabad High Court in this regard will have major implications not only for the functioning of the UP Madrasa Board but also for the educational and social rights of madrasa students across the state.
The ruling has placed a strong emphasis on the concept of “positive secularism,” a principle that entails equal treatment of both secular and religious institutions by the state. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, who led the three-judge bench, underscored that secularism in India means inclusivity, where religious and linguistic minorities should be able to sustain educational institutions that cater to their unique cultural and linguistic needs.
“Affirmative secularism,” stated the court, “requires that the state ensures equal treatment across diverse educational institutions, protecting the minority status of religious schools such as madrasas.” By fostering equal opportunity in the education sector, the court argued, the state fulfills its role in a secular democracy, ensuring no citizen is left behind due to religious or cultural backgrounds. The Chief Justice stressed that the Constitution does not mandate the removal of religious education but rather the provision of equitable and regulated educational quality.
This ruling is a major relief for thousands of madrasa students in Uttar Pradesh who faced an uncertain future following the high court’s decision in March. The Allahabad High Court had earlier declared the Madrasa Education Act invalid, contending that it violated secularism. This decision not only threatened the continuation of thousands of madrasas but also left the students at risk of exclusion from mainstream educational and employment opportunities.
The Supreme Court, however, clarified that a law can be struck down only if it violates fundamental rights or oversteps legislative authority outlined in the Constitution. Justice Chandrachud emphasised that the constitutional validity of a law cannot be questioned solely on the grounds of contravening secularism unless it infringes upon specific constitutional provisions. The ruling safeguards the madrasa system, which contributes to the education of a significant section of Uttar Pradesh youth, especially in marginalised communities.
The Supreme Court bench, while defending the UP Madrasa Act, noted a conflict regarding the higher degrees of “Kamil” and “Fazil,” which had been provided under the Act. The bench ruled that these specific degrees contravened the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act and would no longer be recognised as equivalent to other graduate-level degrees. However, the court affirmed the validity of the UP Madrasa Act in general, stating that its provisions help improve the academic calibre of students by ensuring that madrasas comply with standardised education regulations.
The Chief Justice underscored that the state has a responsibility to ensure students in religious educational institutions receive quality education that prepares them for future employment. The regulations, the court noted, do not interfere with the internal management of madrasas but rather support them by aligning their educational standards with broader educational goals. This regulation benefits students by granting them credentials that improve their prospects for higher education and careers while maintaining the madrasa’s religious autonomy.
Minority Educational Institutions’ Rights
The Supreme Court ruling reinforces the rights of minority communities to establish and manage educational institutions that align with their cultural, religious, and linguistic values. Article 21-A of the Indian Constitution, which enshrines the Right to Education, was cited by the bench, indicating that minority rights must be harmonised with the right to accessible and equitable education. The Right to Education Act and Article 30 of the Constitution, which allow minorities to establish and run their own institutions, underscore the balance between cultural preservation and academic standards.
The court also acknowledged the Madrasa Board’s responsibility in ensuring madrasas provide a standard level of secular education without compromising their identity as minority institutions. The bench ruled that this educational oversight by the state does not compromise the religious nature of the madrasas, but rather supports the state’s responsibility to promote inclusivity and equity within India’s diverse educational landscape.
Praise from Muslim Leaders, Organisations
The ruling has been hailed as a “historic victory” by various madrasa organisations, educational institutions, and minority rights advocates. National organisations that were closely following the case have expressed strong support for the decision, noting that it reaffirms the country’s commitment to secularism by respecting the educational rights of religious minorities. The decision provides stability to over 16,000 madrasas across UP, which play a crucial role in the educational ecosystem of the state.
Maulana Noorul Hasan Azhari, one of the petitioners in the case, commended the ruling, stating, “This decision will protect the right of our community to maintain our religious and cultural identity while participating fully in the country’s educational framework. The court’s affirmation of positive secularism is an important step for minority rights.”
Muslim organisations have echoed these sentiments, with many leaders pointing out that the ruling prevents what they view as “sectarian motives” that seek to exclude madrasas from the educational mainstream. They argue that the recognition of madrasas and their educational credentials secures Muslim students’ pathways to higher education and better employment opportunities.
The Supreme Court also addressed a key point of contention from the Allahabad High Court’s ruling, which argued that secularism necessitated the separation of religious education from state functions. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of secularism, however, involves an inclusive approach that respects the religious and cultural diversity of India.
The Chief Justice stated that secularism does not imply the removal of religious education, but rather the equal treatment of all educational institutions, regardless of their cultural or religious basis. This stance ensures that minority communities do not feel alienated or marginalised within the framework of the Indian state.
The court’s interpretation of secularism in this ruling aligns with India’s pluralistic ideals, which view diversity as a strength rather than a challenge to governance. By allowing for regulated religious education, the court has signalled that Indian secularism is broad enough to accommodate religious plurality within its educational system.
Broader Implications
The ruling has broader implications beyond Uttar Pradesh, as it sets a precedent for the role of minority educational institutions in India’s secular democracy. As India’s social fabric becomes increasingly diverse, the decision reinforces the notion that cultural and religious pluralism is an asset rather than an obstacle.
For minority communities across the country, the apex court’s decision reinforces the legal protections around establishing and managing educational institutions that serve both religious and secular purposes. It signals that attempts to erode these rights, even under the guise of promoting secularism, will not succeed if they infringe upon constitutionally protected freedoms.
Moreover, by upholding the legitimacy of the UP Madrasa Act, the court has indirectly affirmed similar frameworks across other states, providing a robust legal foundation for madrasa systems nationwide. Educational institutions serving minority communities can continue operating with the assurance that their rights are enshrined within the law.
The ruling represents a victory for India’s secular framework, reaffirming the country’s commitment to protecting the rights of all communities. By safeguarding the educational futures of madrasa students and supporting the autonomy of minority educational institutions, the decision balances secularism with inclusivity. The court’s emphasis on positive secularism and equitable treatment sets a significant precedent for the protection of minority rights within India’s constitutional framework.
As the state and educational institutions move forward following this ruling, the message is clear: India’s secularism is built on a foundation of diversity and inclusion, ensuring that all citizens — regardless of religion, language, or culture — can access quality education and equal opportunities. This decision thus serves as a milestone, reaffirming the resilience of India’s pluralistic identity and the enduring strength of its democratic principles.
