| Introduction: Contextual Introduction Body: Highlight the main features of the judgment and concept of positive secularism. Conclusion: Way forward |
The Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Anjum Qadri and Anr vs Union of India & Ors upheld the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, reversing the Allahabad High Court’s ruling that had struck it down. This verdict provides significant relief to thousands of madrasas and their students and reinforces the constitutional framework supporting minority educational rights.
Key Points of the Supreme Court’s Judgment:
- Doctrine of Basic Structure: The Supreme Court clarified that the doctrine of Basic Structure, established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) and further explored in the Indira Nehru Gandhi case (1975), is intended to test the validity of constitutional amendments and not ordinary legislation.
- Positive Secularism: The SC reiterated that India’s model of secularism emphasizes equal respect for all religions. Drawing on the S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) judgment, the Court highlighted that the regulation and recognition of madrasa education by the state is a form of positive action aimed at safeguarding minority rights under Articles 25-30 of the Constitution. These provisions embody the other dimension of secularism—religious tolerance.
- Educational Rights and Quality Concerns: The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) opposed the Act, citing the poor quality of education in madrasas and claiming that it infringed on Article 21A’s mandate for quality, mainstream education. The Supreme Court, however, found that while the state must ensure educational standards, Article 21A and the Right to Education (RTE) Act contain provisions that exempt minority institutions from compliance, protecting their rights under Article 30(1). This position aligns with the Court’s 2014 ruling in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India, which noted that imposing such standards on minority institutions could undermine their constitutional rights
- Recognition of Religious Education: The judgment distinguished between religious instruction and religious education. Article 28 prohibits religious instruction in wholly state-funded institutions but allows religious education with consent in other cases. This view was in contrast to the compulsory prayer practices in Kendriya Vidyalayas, which remain contested under Article 28(1). The judgment maintained that theological education, chosen voluntarily, aligns with individual rights and pluralistic values.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling on the UP Madarsa Act reflects a balanced approach to secularism, aligning with India’s vision of positive secularism that respects and protects the rights of all religious communities.
