Case Summary: Anjum Kadari & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2024) | Supreme Court Reaffirms India's Positive Secularism

The Hon'ble Supreme Court’s decision reaffirmed the limits of state intervention in religious educational institutions, safeguarding secularism, equality, and educational rights under the Constitution.

Case Title: Anjum Kadari & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Citation: Special Leave Petition (C) No.8541 of 2024

Judges: Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra

Judgment on: November 5, 2024

Facts

This case involves multiple Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision on the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Madarsa Education Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Madarsa Act). The petitions specifically scrutinize provisions regulating education standards and examination mechanisms within Madarsas in Uttar Pradesh, as established by a Board under this Act. Petitioners also address the Madarsa Act's alignment with the constitutional principles of secularism, equality, and the rights of religious minorities to establish and manage their educational institutions under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution.

Historical Context

The Madarsa system, historically rooted in the Tughlaq era, has played a central role in education, particularly for the Muslim community, by imparting religious and general knowledge. The colonial government formalized certain aspects of Madarsa education in Uttar Pradesh under the Education Code of 1908. Post-independence, the UP government enacted rules in 1969, 1987, and later, the Madarsa Act in 2004, regulating Madarsas by setting educational standards, conducting exams, and recognizing institutions.

This legislation became pivotal in modernizing Madarsa education, adding subjects such as science and mathematics to balance religious and secular education, while financial incentives encouraged Madarsas to incorporate these subject

Issues

• Legislative Competence and Secularism: Whether the State legislature had the constitutional authority under Entry 25 of List III to enact the Madarsa Act, or whether the Act infringed upon secular principles by imposing State regulation on religious institutions.
• Minority Rights under Article 30: Whether the Madarsa Act, which regulates the standards and curriculum of Madarsas, violates the rights of religious minorities under Article 30 to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
• Compatibility with Article 21A (Right to Education): Whether the Madarsa Act aligns with the State's obligation to provide free and compulsory education to children aged 6-14 under Article 21A, considering that the Right to Education Act exempts minority religious institutions from its purview.
• Conflict with the UGC Act: Whether the provisions of the Madarsa Act allowing the State to regulate higher education degrees (Fazil and Kamil) conflict with the UGC Act’s exclusive authority over higher education standards under Entry 66 of List I.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld parts of the Madarsa Act while declaring specific provisions unconstitutional:

Secularism and Legislative Competence: The Court held that secularism, as interpreted in the Indian constitutional context, does not necessitate a complete separation between religion and the State. The Court emphasized that secularism allows the State to regulate educational standards even in religious institutions, provided it does not interfere with their religious character. The regulation under the Madarsa Act, aimed at ensuring educational quality, was thus found consistent with constitutional secularism.

Minority Rights and Article 30: The Court clarified that while Article 30 protects minority rights to establish and administer educational institutions, it does not exempt these institutions from reasonable regulations to ensure quality and standards. The Madarsa Act's secular provisions, including those setting educational standards and ensuring secular subjects in the curriculum, do not infringe upon Article 30 rights. Hence, the Madarsa Act's regulations were upheld as valid.

Right to Education under Article 21A: The Court noted that the Madarsa Act complements the State’s obligation under Article 21A to provide quality education to children. The Court held that the Act’s regulatory provisions align with the constitutional mandate to provide free and compulsory education to children without undermining the religious nature of the institution.

Conflict with UGC Act: The Court found that provisions of the Madarsa Act allowing the State to regulate higher education degrees, such as Fazil and Kamil, conflicted with the UGC Act, which exclusively governs higher education standards under Entry 66 of List I. Accordingly, these provisions were declared unconstitutional, as higher education standards fall within the Union's domain. The Court applied the doctrine of severability, allowing the rest of the Madarsa Act to remain operative while invalidating sections related to higher education.

Click Here to Read the Official Full Judgment

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partially set aside the Allahabad High Court's judgment. The Court upheld the Madarsa Act's regulatory provisions as constitutionally valid, reaffirming the State's authority to set secular educational standards within religious institutions. However, it struck down sections relating to higher education degrees due to conflict with the UGC Act, allowing the rest of the Act to continue without these provisions.

This judgment balances minority rights, State responsibilities under Article 21A, and the secular values of the Constitution, ensuring that Madarsas can retain their religious character while meeting educational standards.