Supreme Court's Verdict on UP Madarsa Act -
In a very important judgment delivered on 5 November 2024, the Supreme Court of India gave its final decision on whether the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 is valid under the Constitution of India.
This case is officially known as Anjum Kadari v. Union of India (2024 INSC 831).
This blog post explains everything about the case in simple English so that students, teachers, and general readers can understand it clearly. The case was heard by a three-judge bench including Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Jamshed B Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.
What is the UP Madarsa Education Act?
The UP Madarsa Education Act, 2004 is a law made by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. It created a special board called the Board of Madarsa Education to take care of the quality of education in Madarsas. There are more than 13,000 Madarsas in UP and they teach over 12 lakh students.
The law helps regulate what is taught in Madarsas. These institutions give both religious education and regular subjects like math, science, and languages.
What Happened in the High Court?
On 22 March 2024, the Allahabad High Court said that the entire Madarsa Act was unconstitutional. The High Court believed that:
- The Act goes against secularism
- It violates Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 21 (Right to Life), and Article 21A (Right to Education)
- It breaks Section 22 of the UGC Act because it gives degree-level education without proper authority
The High Court also said that students from Madarsas should be shifted to regular schools under the state education board. Many people did not agree with this, and they filed appeals in the Supreme Court.
What Did the Supreme Court Decide?
The Supreme Court gave a balanced judgment. It said that most parts of the Madarsa Act are valid and constitutional. But the parts which try to regulate higher education degrees like Kamil (Bachelor's) and Fazil (Postgraduate) were found to be unconstitutional.
Key Reasons for the Supreme Court’s Judgment
1. Basic Structure vs. Specific Articles
The Court said that a law can only be removed if it breaks a specific Article of the Constitution. You can't say a law is invalid just because it goes against general principles like secularism or democracy unless there is a clear violation of a constitutional provision.
2. Religious Education vs. Religious Instruction
The Court made an important difference between:
- Religious Instruction: Teaching a particular religion’s rituals and practices
- Religious Education: Teaching about different religions and philosophies
According to Article 28 of the Constitution, religious instruction cannot be given in government-funded schools. But religious education or recognition of private religious schools is not banned.
3. Equality and Minority Rights
The Supreme Court said the Act actually helps minority institutions by making sure students get good education. This supports the idea of real equality. Secularism does not mean the government should ignore minorities. It means the government should help everyone equally.
4. Regulatory Purpose of the Madarsa Act
The Court said the Act is not for giving religious instruction but for improving education quality. So, it is a regulatory law. The state has a right to make sure all schools maintain some basic educational standards, even if they are minority-run institutions.
5. Right to Education (Article 21A) Not Violated
The Court disagreed with the High Court’s view that the Madarsa Act breaks the Right to Education. The RTE Act, 2009 does not apply to minority schools. So, Madarsas are not required to follow every part of the RTE Act.
6. UP Government Has Power to Make the Law
The Supreme Court confirmed that the State of Uttar Pradesh has the power to make such a law under Entry 25 of List III (Concurrent List) which includes education. Even if religious content is part of education, the state can regulate the secular part.
7. Conflict with UGC Act
The Court agreed that the Madarsa Act cannot regulate higher education because this is the job of the University Grants Commission (UGC) under Entry 66 of List I (Union List).
So, the Court struck down only those sections of the Madarsa Act that dealt with degrees like Kamil and Fazil because they conflict with the UGC Act.
Final Result of the Case
- The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court
- The Madarsa Act is constitutional except for parts that give higher education degrees
- The state can continue to regulate Madarsas and improve education quality
- The Madarsa Board cannot issue Bachelor’s or Master’s level degrees
Why This Judgment Is Important
This decision is very important for minority rights, education law, and the principle of secularism. It shows how courts can balance different values like equality, religious freedom, and education rights. It also clarifies that laws must be challenged based on specific constitutional violations, not broad ideas.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has protected the rights of minority educational institutions while making sure the rules of the Constitution are followed. This judgment is a good example of how Indian democracy respects both diversity and legal clarity.
Stay connected with us for more legal and educational updates in simple language!