Anjum Kadari & Anr. …Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. …Respondents
Citation: Special Leave Petition (C) No.8541 of 2024
Case Title: Anjum Kadari & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
FACTS
The case of Anjuman Kadri & another vs union of India & others poses a constitutional challenge to the Uttar Pradesh board of madrasa education act 2004. Madrasas are Islamic educational institutions that provide both religious and secular education. This act authorizes the state board to certify the qualifications of the students, conduct their exams under their supervision, design curriculum, and manage teaching appointments of these institutions.
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the act, arguing that it violates one of the basic features: the secular character of the Indian constitution, and it is against the religious freedom provided by the Indian constitution.
The case came into focus when the Allahabad High Court, in March 2024, declared the Act unconstitutional. The court held that the law violated articles 14 (Right to Equality), 21A (Right to Education), and also violated the basic structure doctrine, particularly secularism.
The high court also questions about the capability of the state to legislate on specific aspects of education that come under the union list.
The Uttar Pradesh government challenged this decision before the Supreme Court. The apex court stayed the high court judgment and started a detailed hearing on the matter. The court has to look at the key provisions of the Indian constitution like minority rights, secularism, legislative competence, and educational policy.
ISSUES RAISED
Legislative Competence and Secularism: weather the state legislature of Uttar Pradesh had a legislative authority to enact the provisions related to religious and higher education.
Minority Rights under Article 30: weather the madrasa act, which regulates the standard the curriculum of madrassas, infringes upon the rights of minorities under article 30 of the constitution.
Compatibility with Article 21A (Right to Education): Whether the Madrasa Act aligns with the State’s obligation to provide free and compulsory education to children aged 6-14 under Article 21A, guaranteeing the right to education.
Conflict with the UGC Act: weather the act contradicts with the provisions of the university grants commission act 1956, especially section 22 exclusively authority over higher education standards under Entry 66 of List I.
CONTENTION
Petitioners’ Arguments: –
- The petitioners argued that the Madrasa Act violates the secular character of Indian constitution. It gives preferential treatment to Islamic religious institutions by establishing a separate regulatory body, they mainly focus on the Islamic education thereby violating the principle of secularism.
- The major point of contention is that the state providing the administrative facility to madrassas and debar support for institutions of other communities. They claimed that state funding and administrative support to a religious community’s educational institutions undermines the neutrality of the state.
- The Act, according to them, failed to ensure uniform educational standards and compromised the rights of children under Article 21A. They stated that the act does not have standardized educational system as compare to mainstream schools, so they’re compromising the educational rights of children enrolled in madrassas
- It was argued that the state had no power to regulate higher religious education such as Fazil and Kamil degrees, which are equivalent to higher education degrees. These fall exclusively within the legislative competence of the Union under Entry 66 of List I.
- The Act also allegedly violated Article 14 by favouring one religious group over others.
Respondents’ Arguments: –
- The respondents contended that the Act merely regulates and modernizes Madrasas, ensuring that they also teach secular subjects like mathematics, science, and languages. They argued that this will improve the quality of education of madrasas and helps brings madarsa students into mainstream modern education while preserving their religious identity.
- They argued that the Act is in line with Entry 25 of List III (Concurrent List), which allows both state and central governments to legislate on education, excluding higher education. This allows both the central and state governments to legislate on matters relating to primary education. Since madrassas primarily offer school level education. So, the act was within the jurisdiction of state legislature
- They defended the regulation of madrassas as a reasonable restriction under Article 30, which permits minority institutions to be subject to regulatory mechanisms to ensure educational quality.
- The respondents denied that the Act infringed secularism, emphasizing that Indian secularism permits engagement with all religions rather than total separation. And said that the Indian secularism does not mandate a complete separation of state and religion.
- They also asserted that Madrasas are exempt under the RTE Act from certain requirements applicable to mainstream schools.
RATIONALE
The apex court delivered judgement on November 5, 2024 the Court maintain a balanced approach and upheld the majority of the provisions of the Madarsa Act, while striking down only those sections which directly conflicted with the UGC Act and related to higher education degrees.
Secularism: – The Court held that secularism in the Indian context does not mean strict separation of state and religion but allows the state to engage with religion to maintain peace in the society in a neutral and non-discriminatory manner. The establishment of the Madarsa Board was aimed at regulating the quality of education in madrassas and introducing secular subjects, which is not against the constitutional principle of secularism. They are aiming to make the madrassas education on the line of modern education.
Article 30 (Minority Rights): – The Court said that Article 30 grants minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions, but this right is not an absolute right. It is subject to reasonable regulation to ensure a good quality of education. The Court found that the Act does not interfere with the religious studies of madrassas but ensures that students grow and get modern and secular education.
Article 14 (Equality): – The Court rejected the argument that the Act was discriminatory. It noted that there was no bar on other religious or linguistic minorities from establishing educational boards or institutions. The act is not discriminatory but addressees a specific community’s educational needs in a constitutional manner and providing them opportunity to develop.
Legislative Competence: – The court upholding the state’s competence to legislate under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, the Court ruled that the provisions of the Act dealing with higher religious degrees like Fazil and Kamil intruded upon Entry 66 of List I (Union List), which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the central government.
Article 21A (Right to Education): – The Court observed that Madarsas are not excluded from the purview of Article 21A, but they enjoy exemptions under the RTE Act. However, the introduction of secular education in madrassas helps fulfil the objectives of Article 21A like providing modern education in madrassas such as mathematics, science and English and does not violate it.
Doctrine of Severability: The Court applied the doctrine of severability to strike down only the unconstitutional portions of the Act while preserving the remaining sections which are as per the constitutional values. This approach protected the core objective of the legislation without rendering the entire Act void.
DEFECTS OF LAW
- Overlap Between Lists: The overlap between Entries 25 (Concurrent List) and 66 (Union List) continues to cause confusion in determining jurisdiction over educational matters. There is no contention in that the states can regulate general education and the centre controls higher education standards. But sometimes these overlaps and complicates jurisdiction.
- Regulatory Ambiguity: The Act lacked clear guidelines on the regulatory powers of the Board, especially regarding curriculum design, teacher qualifications. There is a vagueness in implementation and lack of accountability and one of the basic problems is that there is no uniform standard across madrassas
- Religious vs. Secular Balance: While the judgment supports secular education in madrassas, it does not provide a mechanism that how to monitor or measure the dominance of religious teachings. It remains silent on various issues like weather the education provided in madrassas align with the constitutional values like scientific temper and critical thinking.
- Exclusion of Other Minorities: The Act’s exclusive focus on Islamic institutions, without offering a parallel structure for other religious or linguistic minorities, it solely discusses issues related to the education structures of madrasas and the absence of similar structures for other communities.
- UGC Conflict: Although resolved in this case, similar conflicts with the UGC Act may arise in other states that attempt to regulate higher religious education. The main problem here is that if madrassas and other religious institutions starting granting higher education degrees, this rising concerns over quality and uniformity. The lack of community between religious education frameworks and national higher education norms could lead to disputes over recognition, funding, and regulatory control.
INFERENCE
The case of Anjum Kadari & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. is a landmark judgment that strengthen the constitutional balance between minority rights, secularism, and state regulation. The Supreme Court’s decision has elucidated that the state can regulate educational quality without undermine the religious autonomy of minority institutions.
The judgment adopts a balanced view of secularism, highlighting that Indian secularism involves equal respect and engagement with all religions, rather than their exclusion from public life.
The ruling also contributes to the jurisprudence on legislative competence by reinforcing the boundaries between state and central powers in educational matters. By invoking the doctrine of severability, the Court further necessary educational reforms are not obstructive due to limited legislative overreach.
Ultimately, the decision protects minority rights while upholding the state’s responsibility to ensure that students in religious institutions receive a well-rounded education that prepares them to be ready for the modern-day challenges. It is a vital precedent for future challenges to educational policies involving religious and minority institutions.
WRITTEN BY
YASIR ABOOZAR
JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA