Anjum Kadari & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 INSC 831
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J B Pardiwala, Manoj
Misra
Facts:
The case arose from a challenge to the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa
Education Act, 2004, commonly referred to as the Madarsa Act, which had been
declared unconstitutional by the Allahabad High Court. The High Court had
struck down the entire Act, holding that it violated the principle of secularism, as
well as Articles 14 and 21-A of the Constitution of India.
The Madarsa Act was enacted to regulate Madarsa education in Uttar Pradesh
by establishing the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education. This Board
was responsible for setting curriculum standards, recognizing institutions,
conducting examinations, and prescribing qualifications for teachers.
However, the High Court ruled that the Act was unconstitutional because it allegedly
mixed religion with State-funded education, violating the secular nature of
the Indian Constitution.
The petitioners, including Anjum Kadari, challenged the Allahabad High
Court’s decision, arguing that Madarsas do not exclusively provide
religious education but also offer modern subjects such as mathematics,
science, and social studies. They contended that the Act did not violate
secularism but merely regulated education in minority institutions.
The case also raised the issue of whether the State legislature had the
competence to regulate Madarsa education under Entry 25, List III of the
Seventh Schedule, and whether certain provisions of the Madarsa Act
conflicted with the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (UGC Act),
which governs higher education in India.
Statutory Provisions:
1. Constitution of India
Article 14 – Right to equality
Article 21-A – Right to education
Article 25 – Freedom of religion
Article 28 – Prohibition of religious instruction in State-funded institutions
Article 30 – Rights of minorities to establish and administer educational
institutions
2. Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004
Established the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education
Prescribed curriculum, qualifications, and recognition criteria for
Madarsas
Allowed granting of degrees such as Fazil (Bachelor’s) and Kamil
(Master’s)
3. University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (UGC Act)
Section 22 – Only UGC-recognized institutions can confer degrees
Section 3 – Institutions must be deemed universities to grant recognized
degrees
Issues:
1. Whether the Madarsa Act violates the principle of secularism and Article 14 of
the Constitution.
2. Whether the State legislature has the competence to enact the Madarsa Act
under Entry 25, List III of the Seventh Schedule.
3. Whether provisions of the Madarsa Act conflict with the UGC Act, which
governs higher education.
4. Whether the High Court erred in striking down the entire Madarsa Act instead
of severing only the unconstitutional portions.
2Judges and Opinions:
1. Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud (Majority Opinion)
Held that the Madarsa Act does not violate secularism as it is a regulatory
legislation aimed at improving educational standards in Madarsas, rather
than imposing religious instruction. The Court ruled that the Act is
constitutionally valid, except for the provisions related to Fazil and
Kamil degrees, which conflict with the UGC Act.
2. Justice J B Pardiwala (Concurring Opinion)
Agreed that secularism does not prohibit the State from recognizing and
regulating minority institutions, provided they adhere to certain academic
standards. However, he supported striking down only the provisions
concerning higher education degrees while upholding the rest of the Act.
3. Justice Manoj Misra (Concurring Opinion)
Emphasized that the right of minorities to establish and administer
institutions does not preclude State regulation, especially when public funds
are involved. He concurred with the majority decision to uphold the Act, with
limited modifications.
Judgements:
The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s decision, ruling that
the Madarsa Act is constitutionally valid. However, it struck down the
provisions related to Fazil and Kamil degrees, holding that they conflict
with the UGC Act, which governs higher education standards in India.
The Court held that:
1. The Madarsa Act is a valid exercise of legislative power under Entry
25, List III, as it regulates education and does not impose religious
instruction.
2. Madarsas are entitled to State recognition and regulation, provided
they comply with educational quality standards.
3. The provisions of the Act related to Fazil and Kamil degrees are
unconstitutional because only UGC-recognized institutions can
confer degrees under Section 22 of the UGC Act.
4. The rest of the Madarsa Act remains in force, ensuring that Madarsas
can continue operating under the regulatory framework
established by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education.
Precedents:
S R Bommai v. Union of India (1994) – Defined secularism as part of
the basic structure of the Constitution.
Ahmedabad St Xavier’s College Society v. State of Gujarat (1974) –
Held that minority institutions can be regulated by the State without
violating their rights.
P A Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) – Clarified that
regulation does not amount to interference in minority educational
institutions.
Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh (2005) – Held that only UGC-
recognized institutions can confer degrees.
T M A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) – Established
criteria for the regulation of minority educational institutions.
