Anjum Kadari and another v. Union of India & Anr
Managers Association Madaris Arabiya UP v. Union of India SLP(C) No. 7821/2024
Facts: Constitutionality of Uttar pradesh Madarsa Education Act, 2004 was challenged. The term ‘madarsa’ refers to any school or college where any sort of education is imparted. He sought regularization of his services and salary as par with regular teachers, relying on several provisions of the Madarsa Act and the allied Regulations. Other similar Writ Petitions were also referred to a larger bench and the Chief Justice of the High Court constituted a bench to hear the reference According to the data placed on record in the affidavit filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, there are presently around thirteen thousand Madarsas catering to more than twelve lakh students in the state. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has held 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 and directed that the State Government take steps to accommodate all students studying in the Madarsas in regular schools recognized under the
Primary Education Board and the High School and Intermediate Education Board of the State of Uttar Pradesh. While declaring the law as Ultra Vires, the Division comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi also directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to frame a scheme so that the students presently studying in Madrasas can be accommodated in the formal education system.
Issue:Is the 'Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004' constitutional?
Observation: the Supreme Court today (November 5) upheld the constitutional validity of the 'Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004' and set aside the Allahabad High Court's judgement which had struck it down earlier. Court held that the Madarsa Act, to the extent it regulates higher education in relation to 'fazil' and 'kamil' degrees, is in conflict with the UGC Act and to that extent it was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court had stayed the High Court's judgment, prima facie observing that the High Court misconstrued the Act.
Conclusions from the judgment are as follows :
a. The Madarsa Act regulates the standards of education in Madarsas recognised by the Board.
b. The Madarsa Act is consistent with the positive obligation of the State to ensure that the students studying in the recognized Madarsas attain a level of competency which will allow them to actively participate in society and earn a living.
c. Article 21A and the Right to Education Act have to be read consistently with the right of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The Board with the approval of the State Government can enact regulations to ensure that religious minority educations impart secular education of requisite standards without destroying their minority character.
d. The Madarsa Act is within the legislative competence of the State Legislature and traceable to Entry 25 of List 3. However, the provisions of the Madarsa Act which seek to regulate higher education degrees such as 'fazil' and 'kamil' are unconstitutional as they are in conflict with the UGC Act which has been enacted under Entry 66 of List 1.
