LexANJUM KADARI & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 365 : 2024 INSC 831 Anjum Kadari & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8541 of 2024) 05 November 2024 [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to correctness of the order passed by the High Court holding the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 to be unconstitutional on the ground that it violates the principle of secularism and Articles 14 and 21A of the Constitution. Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 – Constitutional validity – Madarsa Act established the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education, to regulate, among other things, the standards of education, qualifications for teachers, and conduct of examinations in Madarsas in the State of Uttar Pradesh – High Court struck down the entirety of the Act – Correctness: Held: Madarsa Act regulates the standard of education in Madarsas recognized by the Board for imparting Madarsa education – Madarsa Act is consistent with the positive obligation of the State to ensure that students studying in recognised Madarsas attain a level of competency which will allow them to effectively participate in society and earn a living – Art.21-A and the RTE Act have to be read consistently with the right of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice – Board with the approval of the State government can enact regulations to ensure that religious minority institutions impart secular education of a requisite standard without destroying their minority character – Thus, Madarsa Act is within the legislative competence of the State legislature and traceable to Entry 25 of List III – However, the provisions of the Madarsa Act seeking to regulate higher-education degrees, such * Author 366 [2024] 11 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports as Fazil and Kamil unconstitutional as they are in conflict with the UGC Act, enacted under Entry 66 of List I – Judgment of the High Court set aside. [Para 104] Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 – Legislative competence – Madarsa Act, if within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 25, List III – Provisions of Madrasa Act, if in conflict with the UGC Act enacted under entry 66, List I – Entire Madrasa Act, if need to be struck down as some of its provisions contravened the provisions of the UGC Act: Held: Provisions of the Madarsa Act seek to “regulate” Madarsas which are educational institutions run by religious minority – While the Madarsas do impart religious instruction, their primary aim is education – Mere fact that the education which is sought to be regulated includes some religious teachings or instruction, does not automatically push the legislation outside the legislative competence of the state – No jurisprudential basis to read Entry 25, List III to be limited to only education that is devoid of any religious teaching or instruction – Thus, cannot be said that the Madarsa Act (in its entirety) which seeks to regulate the functioning of Madarsas in Uttar Pradesh is outside the competence of the state legislature – Madarsa Act has been enacted pursuant to Entry 25 of List III – UGC Act enacted by Parliament pursuant to Entry 66, occupies the field with regard to the coordination and determination of standards in Universities – Thus, State legislation which seeks to regulate higher education, in conflict with the UGC Act, would be beyond the legislative competence of the State legislature – 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 s.22 of the UGC Act – UGC Act governs the standards for higher education and a state legislation cannot seek to regulate higher education, in contravention of the provisions of the UGC Act – Furthermore, entire statute does not need to be struck down each time that certain provisions of the statute are held to not meet constitutional muster – Statute is void to the extent that it contravenes the Constitution – On an examination of the Madarsa Act, it is clear that prescribing the instructional material, conducting exams and conferring degrees for Fazil and Kamil were only a part of the functions of the Board – Infirmity lies in the said provisions which
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.