Text

Anjum Kadari v. Union of India, 2024

Facts
This case focused on the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 (Madarsa Act), which governed the teaching standards, curriculum, administration, and exams in Uttar Pradesh's madarsas (Islamic religious schools). Additionally, it gave the Board permission to award degrees such as "Fazil" and "Kamil," which were regarded as being on par with degrees from mainstream universities.
The Act was challenged in a petition submitted to the Allahabad High Court, which claimed that it went against the secular principles of the Constitution and the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. The Act was declared unconstitutional by the High Court on March 22, 2024, and the State was ordered to transfer Madarsa students to mainstream, government-approved schools.
Following its acceptance of the decision, the State of Uttar Pradesh issued an implementation order. However, on April 5, 2024, the Supreme Court heard appeals from Madarsa administrators, teachers, and students, and stayed the High Court's decision.


Issues
1. Did the Madarsa Act violate Articles 14, 21, and 21-A of the Constitution and secularism?
2. If the State Legislature was able to pass the legislation.
3. If there was a conflict between the UGC Act and the Act's provisions regarding the awarding of higher education degrees.


Arguments
Arguments made by the petitioners (appellants):
- The Madarsa Act is secular in nature and governs educational standards in madarsas; it neither requires nor encourages religious instruction.
- Religious instruction is not prohibited in all educational settings, particularly when institutions are run by minority groups.
- The Act was passed under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, which grants the State authority over education.
- Thousands of students and teachers are disrupted by the High Court's order because it leaves a legislative vacuum.


Arguments made by the respondents (Union of India and Uttar Pradesh):
- The Act encourages religious education and contravenes Article 28, which forbids religious instruction in state-aided institutions;
- The term "education" in Entry 25 must refer to secular education, and madarsas are not included in this definition;
- The degree-granting authority of the Madarsa Act clashes with the UGC Act, which centralizes higher education regulation;
- The Act violates children's fundamental right to a secular and holistic education as stipulated by Article 21-A.


Held
On November 5, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a complex ruling. It struck down parts of the Madarsa Act while upholding others.
- The Madarsa Act's regulatory provisions were found to be constitutionally sound by the court. It confirmed that, in order to maintain standards and quality, state regulation of educational institutions—including religious ones—is acceptable.
According to Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, the State possesses the legislative authority to pass such a law.
- But because it was in conflict with the UGC Act and the Union's exclusive powers under Entry 66 of List I, the Court invalidated portions of the Act that permitted madarsas to grant degrees like "Fazil" and "Kamil" as equivalent to university degrees.
-Instead of excluding religion from public life, the ruling promoted equal respect for all religions and highlighted secularism as a positive concept.
The remainder of the Act is still in effect because the unconstitutional parts were deemed severable. As a result, the Madarsa Act's regulatory provisions were maintained, and its inconsistency with national higher education standards was addressed by restricting its scope.

Detail Information

Title

Anjum Kadari v. Union of India, 2024

Court

: supreme court., 2024

Lenght/Sections/Order/Rules

-

Language

English

Case Number/Citation

Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.

Matter(s)

-

Councels

For Petitioners: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Mr. Salman Khurshid, Dr. Menaka Guruswamy For Respondents: Mr. R. Venkataramani (Attorney General), Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Mr. S. Guru Krishnakumar, Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave

Statement of Responsibility

RIMANSHU VERMA /UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW

See Also

File Attachment

Comments