A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 (“Madarsa Act”), which established a regulatory board for Madarsa education in Uttar Pradesh. The High Court had previously invalidated the Act on grounds of violating secularism and fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21A of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, found that the Act largely served the legitimate purpose of regulating education in Madarsas while preserving their minority character. The Court upheld the Act’s validity except for provisions regulating higher education, which were deemed ultra vires due to conflict with the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (UGC Act). The judgment reinforced the concept of “positive secularism,” emphasizing the State’s role in ensuring quality education while respecting minority rights.

Keywords:
Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, Positive Secularism, Legislative Competence, Right to Education, Minority Rights.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Anjum Kadari & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

ii) Case Number:
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8541 of 2024

iii) Judgement Date:
November 5, 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, JJ.

vi) Author:
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI

vii) Citation:
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 365; 2024 INSC 831

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004
• Articles 14, 21A, 25-30 of the Constitution of India
• University Grants Commission Act, 1956

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any):
Not explicitly mentioned.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Educational Law, Minority Rights Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
The dispute arose over the constitutional validity of the Madarsa Act, struck down by the Allahabad High Court on the grounds of violating secularism and fundamental rights. The Act aimed to regulate Madarsa education in Uttar Pradesh, setting standards and qualifications for teachers and students. However, the High Court ruled that the Act infringed the principle of secularism and Articles 14 and 21A by favoring a religious minority group.

The appellants challenged this judgment, arguing that the Act enabled religious minorities to administer institutions under Article 30 while ensuring educational quality. The State of Uttar Pradesh also contended that the Act was within its legislative competence under Entry 25 of List III (Concurrent List) of the Constitution.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The Madarsa Act established a regulatory board to oversee Madarsa education, focusing on curriculum, examinations, and teacher qualifications.
2. The Act’s objectives included ensuring that Madarsa students receive quality education compatible with societal needs, alongside their religious teachings.
3. The Allahabad High Court struck down the Act, asserting that it contravened the secular ethos and deprived Madarsa students of a holistic education under Article 21A.
4. Provisions of the Act regulating higher education (Fazil and Kamil degrees) were challenged as being ultra vires due to conflict with the UGC Act, enacted under Entry 66 of List I.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i. Whether the Madarsa Act violates secularism, a basic feature of the Constitution.
ii. Whether the Act’s provisions contravene Articles 14, 21A, and 30 of the Constitution.
iii. Whether the State legislature has the competence to enact the Act under Entry 25 of List III, despite the UGC Act’s presence under Entry 66 of List I.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
i. The Act enables Madarsas to function as minority educational institutions under Article 30, balancing their minority character with State-regulated secular education.
ii. The Act fulfills the State’s obligation under Article 21A to ensure quality education for all, including minority students.
iii. The principles of secularism do not preclude the State from recognizing and regulating religious educational institutions imparting secular education.
iv. Striking down the Act would harm over 12 lakh students currently enrolled in Madarsas and create a regulatory vacuum.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
i. The Act institutionalizes religious instruction, contravening the secular ethos of the Constitution.
ii. Provisions relating to Fazil and Kamil degrees conflict with the UGC Act, exceeding the State legislature’s competence.
iii. Regulation of education in Madarsas by a minority welfare department discriminates against students compared to those under general education departments.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi:

1. The Madarsa Act was deemed largely constitutional, as it ensured quality education in minority institutions without infringing their rights under Article 30.
2. Provisions regulating higher education (Fazil and Kamil degrees) were struck down for conflicting with the UGC Act.

b. Obiter Dicta:
The Court emphasized the concept of positive secularism, requiring the State to balance minority rights with secular educational standards.

c. Guidelines:

1. State legislatures must exercise legislative competence within the framework of the Constitution and federal structure.
2. Minority institutions can impart secular education without losing their religious character.
3. Provisions conflicting with central legislation like the UGC Act must be severed, not the entire statute.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The judgment underscores the balance between minority rights and secularism in India’s constitutional framework. It reiterates the State’s obligation to provide quality education while respecting minority autonomy. The judgment highlights the doctrine of severability, allowing unconstitutional provisions to be excised without invalidating the entire statute.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India [1994] 2 SCR 644
• T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481
• D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab (1971) 2 SCC 269
• Frank Anthony Public School Employees’ Association v. Union of India (1986) 4 SCC 707

b. Important Statutes Referred

• Constitution of India, Articles 14, 21A, 25-30
• Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004
• University Grants Commission Act, 1956