ANJUM KADARI vs UNION OF INDIA, 2024
Case Title and Citation: Anjum Kadari v. Union of India 2024 INSC 831 (5 November 2024)
Factual Background
The case involved a challenge to the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 (Madarsa Act), which established a board to regulate the standards of education in Madarsas across the state. These institutions serve over 12 lakh students and provide both religious and secular education up to various levels. The Madarsa Act’s purpose was to address difficulties in running Madarsas, improve merit, and provide adequate study facilities. On March 22, 2024, the Allahabad High Court invalidated the entire Madarsa Act, holding that it violated the principle of secularism and Articles 14, 21, and 21-A of the Constitution, and that it conflicted with Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (UGC Act). The High Court also directed the State Government to transfer all students to regular recognized schools. The Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s judgment on April 5, 2024, while hearing the matter.
Issue(s)
- Whether the Madarsa Act is unconstitutional because it violates the basic structure of the Constitution, specifically the principle of secularism, or fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 21 (life and liberty), and 21-A (education).
- Whether the State Legislature possessed the legislative competence under the Constitution to enact the Madarsa Act.
- Whether provisions of the Madarsa Act which regulate degrees, such as Kamil and Fazil, conflict with the UGC Act enacted by Parliament.
Decision of the Supreme Court
A Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, with the judgment authored by Chief Justice Chandrachud, set aside the High Court’s ruling and upheld the constitutional validity of the Madarsa Act. However, the Court declared unconstitutional the specific provisions of the Act that regulated the higher education degrees (Fazil and Kamil) because they conflicted with the UGC Act. The Court confirmed that the remaining, non-conflicting provisions of the Act were valid.
Reason for the Decision
- Secularism and Basic Structure: The Court held that a statute cannot be invalidated merely for violating an undefined concept like the basic structure (e.g., secularism); a law must be struck down only if it violates a specific provision of the Constitution or falls outside the legislature’s competence. Secularism is a positive concept requiring the State to take active steps to help minority institutions achieve high standards while retaining their identity. The Madarsa Act is consistent with this positive obligation to ensure students attain a minimum level of competency to participate effectively in society, thereby furthering substantive equality for the minority community.
- Regulatory Nature and Article 30: The Madarsa Act is a regulatory statute, not a law to provide religious instruction, and its purpose is to regulate the standard of education in Madarsas. The State has a legitimate interest in ensuring minority institutions meet educational standards similar to other institutions. The Court distinguished “religious instruction” (prevented by Article 28 in wholly State-maintained institutions) from “religious education” (teaching philosophy of religion), which is permissible. The Act’s regulatory measures are intended to maintain excellence and do not interfere with the minority character protected by Article 30.
- Legislative Competence: The State Legislature was competent to enact the Madarsa Act under Entry 25, List III (“Education” in the Concurrent List). The fact that the education regulated includes some religious teaching does not remove the legislation from the scope of “education” in the Concurrent List. To interpret Entry 25 as excluding religious teaching would contradict the constitutional right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30.
- Conflict with UGC Act (Higher Education): The Court determined that the UGC Act occupies the field regarding the coordination and determination of standards in higher education under Entry 66, List I (Union List). Since Entry 25 of List III is expressly subordinate to Entry 66 of List I, the Madarsa Act, to the extent it regulates higher education degrees like Fazil and Kamil, is beyond the State’s legislative competence and conflicts with Section 22 of the UGC Act.
- Severability: Applying the doctrine of severability, the Court concluded that the entire Act should not be struck down because the provisions regulating Fazil and Kamil degrees are separable from the rest of the statute, which deals primarily with elementary and secondary education. The legislature would have enacted the remaining provisions even if it knew the higher education parts were invalid.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court restored the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, recognizing it as a permissible regulatory measure furthering the State’s positive obligation to ensure minimum educational standards in minority institutions under Article 30. However, the Court invalidated the provisions concerning higher education degrees (Fazil and Kamil) due to their conflict with the UGC Act, based on the Union’s supreme authority over higher education standards.
