Supreme Court’s judgment on the UP Madarsa Act, 2004

Source: The post Supreme Court’s judgment on the UP Madarsa Act, 2004 has been created, based on the article “With UP Madarsa verdict, Supreme Court upholds positive secularism” published in “Indian Express” and on the article “Express View on Supreme Court’s UP Madarsa verdict: A learning matter” published in “Indian Express” on 6th November 2024

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper2- mechanisms, laws, institutions and Bodies constituted for the protection and betterment of these vulnerable sections.

Context:  The article discusses the Supreme Court’s judgment upholding the UP Madarsa Act, 2004. It protects minority rights, regulates madarsa education, ensures quality education, balances secularism and religion, and rejects misuse of the Basic Structure doctrine for ordinary laws.

What is the Anjum Qadri and Anr vs Union of India & Ors case about?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Anjum Qadri and Anr vs Union of India & Ors is a landmark judgment upholding the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004. This ruling, authored by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, reverses the Allahabad High Court’s March 22 judgment that struck down the Act, bringing relief to thousands of madarsas and lakhs of students.

What Was the Supreme Court’s Ruling on the UP Madarsa Act?

1. Challenge to the Act: The Allahabad High Court struck down the Madarsa Act, citing secularism as part of the Basic Structure doctrine. It argued that regulating religious education violates secularism and Article 21A (Right to Education).
2. Act Upheld: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Madarsa Act, 2004, overturning the Allahabad High Court’s decision to strike it down.
3. Basic Structure Doctrine Misapplied: The Court clarified that the Basic Structure doctrine applies only to constitutional amendments, not ordinary laws like the Madarsa Act. This was supported by the 1975 Indira Nehru Gandhijudgment.
4. Secularism Defined: Citing S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Court emphasized that secularism ensures equal treatment of all religions. Recognizing madarsas safeguards minority educational rights without violating secular principles.
5. Article 21A and RTE Act: The Court rejected claims that madarsa education violated Article 21A. In Pramati Trust(2014), the SC exempted minority institutions from the RTE Act’s application.

What is the significance of the ruling?

1. Protection of Minority Rights: The judgment upheld the autonomy of madarsas under Article 30, safeguarding the rights of 13,364 madarsas educating over 12 lakh students in Uttar Pradesh.
2. Clarification on Secularism: It reaffirmed secularism as equal treatment of all religions, citing S.R. Bommai (1994), and dismissed the idea that madarsa education violates secularism.
3. Regulation with Balance: The Court supported state regulation to ensure education quality without undermining the minority character of institutions.
4. Distinction Between Laws: It clarified that the Basic Structure doctrine applies to constitutional amendments, not ordinary laws like the UP Madarsa Act.
5. Education Quality Concerns: The Court addressed criticisms of madarsa education quality, comparing it to systemic issues in secular schools. For example, 25% of 14-18-year-olds struggle with basic reading, according to the 2023 ASER report.

Question for practice :

Discuss how the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Uttar Pradesh Madarsa Act, 2004, balances the protection of minority rights with the principles of secularism and education quality.