Supreme Court Upholds Uttar Pradesh Madarsa Act with Severance of Higher Education Provisions

Introduction

The case of Anjum Kadari v. Union of India (2024 INSC 831) brought before the Supreme Court of India centers on the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Madarsa Education Act, 2004. The appellants, Anjum Kadari and others, challenged the Act's provisions, alleging violations of constitutional principles such as secularism and fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14, 21, and 21-A of the Indian Constitution. The Union of India and other respondents defended the Act, asserting its alignment with the legislative competence granted under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court examined the Uttar Pradesh Madarsa Education Act, 2004, which established the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education to regulate educational standards, teacher qualifications, examinations, and curriculum in Madarsas across the state. The High Court had previously deemed the entire Act unconstitutional, primarily on grounds of violating secularism and fundamental rights.

Upon review, the Supreme Court upheld the Madarsa Act's validity as a legislative measure within the state’s competence under Entry 25, List III of the Seventh Schedule. However, it identified and struck down specific provisions related to higher education degrees — Fazil and Kamil — as being ultra vires due to their conflict with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, 1956, which falls under Entry 66, List I. The Court emphasized the principle of severability, allowing the rest of the Act to remain in force by removing only the unconstitutional sections.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several landmark cases to bolster its reasoning:

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) - Established the Basic Structure doctrine, limiting Parliament's amendment powers.
State Of Karnataka v. Union Of India (1977) - Held that establishing universities under state law must align with UGC standards.
Madhavi Divan & Others v. Union of India (2024) - Reinforced the necessity for educational regulations to respect minority administration rights.
TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) - Clarified the scope of minority educational institution regulations under Article 30.
Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014) - Asserted that the RTE Act cannot abrogate minority rights under Article 30.

These precedents collectively underscore the balance between legislative competence, minority rights, and the maintenance of educational standards.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court's analysis hinged on the legislative competence granted to the state under Entry 25 of List III, which encompasses education including technical and medical education, subject to provisions of Entries 63-66 of List I. The Court determined that while the Madarsa Act generally fell within this jurisdiction, its provisions governing higher education degrees conflicted with the UGC Act, which strictly governs degree conferment under Entry 66, List I.

Applying the doctrine of severability, the Court determined that only the sections pertaining to Fazil and Kamil degrees were unconstitutional. These provisions were removed, allowing the rest of the Act to stand. This nuanced approach preserved the Act's primary aim of regulating Madarsa education while ensuring compliance with national educational standards.

Impact

The judgment has significant implications for minority educational institutions across India:

Regulatory Compliance: Madarsas and similar institutions must align their higher education programs with UGC standards to maintain legitimacy and recognition.
Legislative Clarity: States can continue regulating minority institutions under Entry 25, List III, provided they do not encroach upon areas exclusively governed by the Union, such as higher education degrees.
Severability Doctrine: The Court reinforces the principle that only unconstitutional provisions need be struck down, preserving the validity of the remaining lawful statutes.
Balance Between Minority Rights and Secularism: The ruling maintains a delicate balance, ensuring minority institutions can function and administer education while adhering to national educational standards.

Future cases will likely reference this judgment when addressing the intersection of minority rights and state regulations in educational contexts.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Doctrine of Severability

This legal principle allows a court to remove only the unconstitutional parts of a law, leaving the rest intact. In this case, the Supreme Court applied severability by invalidating the sections of the Madarsa Act that conflicted with the UGC Act, while upholding the remainder of the Act.

Legislative Competence under the Seventh Schedule

India's Constitution divides legislative powers between the Union and States through three lists: Union List, State List, and Concurrent List. Entry 25 of the Concurrent List pertains to education, allowing both Union and State legislatures to make laws. However, certain subjects within this entry, like higher education standards (Entry 66, List I), are exclusively governed by the Union.

Basic Structure Doctrine

Originating from the Kesavananda Bharati case, this doctrine holds that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered or destroyed by any amendment. While traditionally applied to constitutional amendments, its application to ordinary legislation is limited, as reaffirmed by recent judgments.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in Anjum Kadari v. Union of India (2024 INSC 831) upholds the Uttar Pradesh Madarsa Education Act, 2004, affirming the state's authority to regulate minority educational institutions. By striking down only the provisions conflicting with the UGC Act, the Court preserves the Act's foundational objectives while ensuring adherence to national educational standards.

This nuanced decision reinforces the balance between minority rights and secular principles, allowing religious institutions to thrive within the constitutional framework. It also sets a precedent for future legislation and judicial scrutiny concerning the regulation of educational institutions, ensuring that religious autonomy does not compromise educational quality and compliance with overarching educational policies.