Supreme Court Upholds Regulatory Powers of Madarsa Act: Anjum Kadari & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024) INSC 831 (05 November 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 05 November 2024
Citation: (2024) INSC 831
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J B Pardiwala, J, Manoj Misra, J
Can the state regulate minority educational institutions while respecting their rights? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004. The court upheld the Act’s regulatory framework, emphasizing the state’s power to ensure educational standards while protecting minority rights. This judgment clarifies the balance between secularism and the rights of minority institutions in India. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising of Chief Justice of India Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra.

Case Background

The case revolves around the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 (Madarsa Act), which established the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education to regulate education in Madarsas (Islamic schools) in Uttar Pradesh. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad declared the Madarsa Act unconstitutional, citing violations of secularism and Articles 14 and 21A of the Constitution. The High Court also directed the State Government to accommodate all students from Madarsas into regular schools. The appellants challenged this decision in the Supreme Court.

Madarsas in India have a long history, dating back to the Tughlaq rule. They have evolved from elementary schools attached to mosques (Maktabs) to centers of higher learning. Post-independence, the Uttar Pradesh government has taken steps to regulate and modernize Madarsa education, including the introduction of modern subjects like Science, Mathematics, and English.

Currently, there are approximately 13,000 Madarsas in Uttar Pradesh, catering to over 1.2 million students. The state government allocates a significant budget for salaries and provides resources such as books and midday meals to state-funded Madarsas.

Academic education in Madarsas is divided into four levels: Tathania, Fauquania, Maulvi/Munshi, and Alim, which are broadly equivalent to primary, upper primary, secondary, and senior secondary levels, respectively. Some Madarsas also offer Kamil (undergraduate) and Fazil (postgraduate) degrees, though these are not recognized as equivalent to university degrees by the government.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court initially considered a writ petition regarding the regularization of a part-time teacher in a Madarsa. The single judge referred the matter to a larger bench, noting concerns about the Madarsa Act’s constitutionality. Subsequently, other petitions were filed challenging the Act on grounds of secularism and fundamental rights. The High Court then framed the issue as whether the Madarsa Act stands the test of secularism, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

The High Court held that the Madarsa Act violated the principle of secularism and Articles 14, 21, and 21-A of the Constitution and was ultra vires Section 22 of the UGC Act. The High Court directed the State Government to accommodate all students studying in Madarsas in regular schools.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined several key legal provisions:

• Article 14 of the Constitution: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
• Article 15 of the Constitution: Prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
• Article 16 of the Constitution: Ensures equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
• Article 25 of the Constitution: Guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
• Article 26 of the Constitution: Guarantees religious denominations the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes.
• Article 27 of the Constitution: Prohibits compelling any person to pay taxes for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion.
• Article 28 of the Constitution: Prohibits religious instruction in educational institutions wholly maintained out of state funds.
• Article 29 of the Constitution: Protects the rights of citizens to conserve their distinct language, script, or culture.
• Article 30 of the Constitution: Guarantees minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions.
• Article 21-A of the Constitution: Provides for free and compulsory education for children between the ages of six and fourteen.
• Section 1(5) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009: Exempts Madarsas from the purview of the Act.
• Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956: Restricts the right to confer degrees to universities established by law and institutions empowered by Parliament.
• Entry 25 of List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule: Grants power to both the Union and State to legislate on education, including technical and medical education.
• Entry 66 of List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule: Grants power to the Union to legislate on coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court were as follows:

• Appellants (Madarsa Board and others):
  • The Madarsa Act is a valid regulatory measure under Entry 25 of List III, dealing with education.
  • Secularism, as interpreted in S R Bommai v. Union of India, is a positive concept that allows equal treatment of all religions.
  • Article 28 does not prohibit the state from funding schools providing religious education, but only prohibits religious instruction in state-funded institutions.
  • The Madarsa Act does not violate Article 21A or the rights of minorities under Article 30.
  • Striking down the Madarsa Act would create a legislative vacuum and negatively impact students.
• State of Uttar Pradesh:
  • While some provisions of the Madarsa Act may be unconstitutional, the entire Act should not be struck down.
  • Invalid provisions should be severed from the rest of the Act.
• Respondents (Petitioners challenging the Act):
  • The Madarsa Act primarily regulates religious instruction and not secular education.
  • Article 28 prohibits the state from regulating religious instruction.
  • The word “education” in Entry 25, List III, must be construed to mean secular education.
  • The Madarsa Act violates Articles 21 and 21A by depriving students of mainstream education.
  • The Board is disproportionately populated by persons whose competence is in religious instruction.
  • The qualifications of teachers are not adequate to ensure quality education.
  • The Madarsa Act violates the constitutional value of ‘fraternity’ by creating intellectual barriers.

The National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) also supported the arguments of the respondents.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the Madarsa Act violates the principle of secularism and Articles 14, 21, and 21-A of the Constitution.
2. Whether the Madarsa Act is within the legislative competence of the State legislature.
3. Whether the provisions of the Madarsa Act which seek to regulate higher education are in conflict with the UGC Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on S R Bommai v. Union of India [CITATION] to interpret secularism as a positive concept. It used Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala [CITATION] to understand the basic structure doctrine, but clarified that this doctrine does not apply to ordinary legislation. The Court referred to In re Kerala Education Bill 1957 [CITATION] and Ahmedabad St Xavier’s College Society v. State of Gujarat [CITATION] to establish that the State has the power to regulate minority institutions to ensure educational standards, and that the State has an interest in maintaining standards of education in minority educational institutions. The Court also relied on P A Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION] to clarify that the regulations imposed on minority institutions should not deprive them of their minority status. The Court referred to Prof. Yashpal & Anr vs. State of Chhattisgarh [CITATION] to establish the position that the UGC Act occupies the field with regard to the coordination and determination of standards in higher education. The court used R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India [CITATION] to establish the doctrine of severability.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized several points in its reasoning:

• Regulatory Powers: The state has the power to regulate educational institutions, including minority institutions, to ensure standards of education.
• Positive Secularism: Secularism is not merely neutrality but involves positive steps to ensure equality and protect minority rights.
• Substantive Equality: The Madarsa Act furthers substantive equality for the minority community by ensuring that students in Madarsas attain a minimum level of competency.
• Balance of Rights: The Court balanced the rights of minorities under Article 30 with the state’s interest in ensuring quality education and the rights of children under Article 21A.
• Legislative Competence: The state legislature has the power to legislate on education under Entry 25 of List III, but this power is subject to Entry 66 of List I, which deals with higher education standards.
• Severability: The Court emphasized that invalid provisions of a statute can be severed from the rest, and the entire statute need not be struck down.

The court aimed to uphold the regulatory framework of the Madarsa Act while ensuring that the provisions pertaining to higher education aligned with the UGC Act.

Fact:Law Ratio

This table shows that the court’s decision was influenced more by legal considerations than by the factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them. The court reasoned that the state has a legitimate interest in regulating education, including in minority institutions, to ensure quality and standards. The court also emphasized that the rights of minorities under Article 30 are not absolute and are subject to reasonable regulations.

The decision was reached by a unanimous three-judge bench. There were no dissenting opinions.

The court quoted from the judgment:

“The Madarsa Act secures the interests of the minority community in Uttar Pradesh because: (i) it regulates the standard of education imparted by the recognised Madarsas ; and (ii) it conducts examinations and confers certificates to students, allowing them the opportunity to pursue higher education.”

“The provisions of the Madarsa Act are reasonable because they subserve the object of recognition, that is, improving the academic excellence of students in the recognised Madarsas and making them capable to sit for examinations conducted by the Board.”

“The Madarsa Act to the extent to which it seeks to regulate higher education, including the ‘degrees’ of Fazil and Kamil, is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature since it conflicts with Section 22 of the UGC Act.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court upheld the regulatory powers of the state over Madarsa education.
• The Madarsa Act is valid except for provisions pertaining to higher education degrees (Fazil and Kamil).
• The court emphasized the importance of substantive equality and the need to balance minority rights with the state’s interest in ensuring quality education.
• The judgment clarifies the interplay between Article 21-A and Article 30 of the Constitution.
• The state can regulate minority institutions to ensure standards of education without infringing on their minority character.
• Thecourt reiterated that secularism is a positive concept that allows equal treatment of all religions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Anjum Kadari & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. is a significant step in clarifying the extent of regulatory powers the state has over minority educational institutions. The court’s decision ensures that minority institutions can function effectively while adhering to minimum educational standards. The ruling reaffirms the importance of education for all children and the state’s role in ensuring that all children have access to quality education. By upholding the Madarsa Act, the Supreme Court has struck a balance between secularism, minority rights, and the state’s power to regulate education. This judgment is likely to have a far-reaching impact on the regulation of minority educational institutions across India.