Case: Anjum Kadari vs Union Of India

2024, SC

Bench: Dr Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra

Introduction:

The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered by a 3-Judge Bench comprising Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJ, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, JJ, upheld the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 (Madrasa Act). The Court reversed the Allahabad High Court's judgment, which had earlier declared the Madrasa Act unconstitutional. The decision examined issues of secularism, minority rights, the Right to Education (RTE) Act, and legislative competence.

Facts of the Case:

The Uttar Pradesh State legislature enacted the Madarsa Act in 2004 to address challenges faced by Madarsas, particularly in terms of improving education standards and ensuring that students receive a level of competency that allows them to participate in society and pursue employment. The Act established the Board of Madarsa Education to regulate and oversee Madarsas in the state. The Board was tasked with responsibilities such as prescribing curriculum, granting degrees, conducting examinations, and ensuring the quality of education.

The Allahabad High Court in March 2024 declared the Madarsa Act unconstitutional, asserting that it violated the principles of secularism and certain constitutional rights, including Articles 14, 21, and 21-A of the Constitution and Section 22 of the UGC Act, 1956. The Court also raised concerns about the conflict between the Madarsa Act and the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, 1956. The Supreme Court intervened, placing a stay on the High Court’s judgment and considered the matter in-depth.

Issues:

1. Whether the Madarsa Act violates the principle of Secularism and fundamental rights under the Constitution, particularly Articles 14, 21, and 21-A?

2. Whether the Madarsa Act is within the legislative competence of the Uttar Pradesh State legislature?

3. Whether provisions of the Madarsa Act, specifically those regulating higher education degrees like Fazil and Kamil, conflict with the UGC Act?

4. Can provisions of the Madarsa Act be severed to preserve its overall validity despite some of its unconstitutional provisions?

Observations:

• The Court emphasized that the right of religious minorities to administer educational institutions is not absolute but comes with an obligation to ensure educational standards. The State is empowered to regulate these institutions to ensure quality education without infringing on the rights of the minority community to establish institutions of their choice.

• The Court highlighted that Article 21-A (Right to Education) and Article 30 (Right of minorities to establish and administer institutions) must be read together. While the State has the duty to ensure quality education, it must also respect the rights of minorities to impart both religious and secular education.

• The Court ruled that the Madarsa Act is within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 25, List III of the Constitution, which allows the State to regulate educational institutions, including religious institutions like Madarsas. The Court also clarified that the inclusion of religious teachings does not remove the Act from the scope of State competence.

• The Court acknowledged that provisions of the Madarsa Act regulating higher education degrees like Fazil and Kamil conflict with the UGC Act, which governs standards for higher education. Thus, the Madarsa Act's provisions regarding these degrees were found to be unconstitutional as they fell outside the State's competence.

• The Court criticized the Allahabad High Court for not addressing the issue of severability. It held that only the unconstitutional provisions of the Madarsa Act (those related to higher education degrees) should be struck down, leaving the rest of the Act intact and enforceable.

Implications:

• The judgment reaffirms the balance between the State's regulatory powers and the rights of minorities to manage their educational institutions. It upholds the state's role in ensuring that educational standards are maintained while respecting the cultural and religious identity of institutions.

• The decision clarifies that the State legislature has the power to regulate education in religious minority institutions, provided such regulation does not conflict with Union legislation (such as the UGC Act) regarding higher education.

• The ruling ensures that the Madarsa education system in Uttar Pradesh continues to function within a regulatory framework that promotes educational quality, while preserving the distinctive character of Madarsas.