SC rejects plea of 350 West Bengal madrasa teachers seeking grant-in-aid salaries
The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of petitions filed by over 350 teaching and non-teaching staff of West Bengal madrasahs seeking recognition of their appointments and salaries under the state Grants-in-Aid Scheme.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih scrutinised 13 representative petitions out of the more than 350 claimants to test whether any case for relief was made out, and found none persuasive.
The claims trace back to litigation over the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 — initially struck down by a single judge of the Calcutta High Court and affirmed by a Division Bench, before the Supreme Court itself upheld the Act's constitutional validity in a later ruling.
The Court held that neither valid recognition of the madrasahs by the West Bengal Board of Madrasah Education, nor properly constituted Managing Committees, could be established for the petitioners, and rejected the claims of all remaining petitioners along with the 13 examined.
Separately, the state education administration has been conducting inspections of unaided madrasahs to review compliance and reporting requirements.
Article 30 — Minority Right to Establish and Administer Educational Institutions
Article 30(1) of the Constitution gives all religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. This right is not absolute: the Supreme Court's 11-judge bench in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) held that reasonable regulations aimed at ensuring academic standards and preventing maladministration can be imposed even on minority institutions, and that Article 30 does not create an unqualified right to state appointment-and-service arrangements that a state statute like a Madrasah Service Commission Act may set up.
Key Details
- T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002), an 11-judge Constitution Bench, is the leading precedent on minority institutional autonomy under Article 30.
- Article 30(2) bars the state from discriminating against a minority institution in granting aid merely because it is minority-run, but the grant of aid itself is not a constitutional entitlement.
- Aided minority institutions are subject to greater state regulation than unaided ones, particularly regarding staff recruitment and service conditions.
- In S.K. Mohd Rafique v. Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah (2020), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008, holding there is no absolute, unqualified right of appointment under Article 30 that overrides a valid regulatory statute, and set aside the Calcutta High Court's contrary verdict.
The 2026 dismissal builds directly on the 2020 ruling that upheld the 2008 Act — since the Act (and the Commission-based appointment process it prescribes) is valid law, staff who were not appointed through that process, or whose madrasahs lacked valid recognition, cannot claim grant-in-aid salaries as a matter of right.
Grant-in-Aid Scheme and State Regulation of Aided Institutions
A Grants-in-Aid Scheme is a state mechanism to fund private (including minority) educational institutions that meet prescribed recognition and staffing norms, in exchange for the state's regulatory oversight of appointments, qualifications and service conditions. Recognition by the relevant state education board (here, the West Bengal Board of Madrasah Education) and appointment through a valid, board-sanctioned process are preconditions for staff to draw grant-in-aid salaries — informal or institutionally irregular appointments do not automatically create an entitlement to state funds.
Key Details
- The West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 created a centralised Commission to make appointments to recognised, aided madrasahs in the state, similar to School Service Commission mechanisms for general schools.
- Grant-in-aid is disbursed only for posts and appointments that meet the statutory recognition and procedural requirements — the Supreme Court found the 13 test-case petitioners' appointments did not meet this bar.
- The distinction between "recognised and aided," "recognised and unaided," and unrecognised madrasahs determines which regulatory and funding regime applies.
The Court's core finding — that neither valid institutional recognition nor a properly constituted Managing Committee could be shown — meant the petitioners fell outside the category of appointments the Grants-in-Aid Scheme was designed to fund, irrespective of how long they had been working.
- Over 350 teaching and non-teaching madrasah staff petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court.
- Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih; 13 representative petitions were examined in detail.
- West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 — struck down by Calcutta High Court (single judge, then Division Bench), later upheld by the Supreme Court in S.K. Mohd Rafique v. Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah (2020).
- T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) — 11-judge bench, leading precedent on Article 30 minority institutional rights and permissible state regulation.
- Article 30(1) protects the right to establish and administer minority educational institutions; Article 30(2) bars discrimination in state aid on grounds of minority management.