Introduction
In a landmark ruling with significant implications for secularism, minority rights, and educational federalism, the Supreme Court in Anjum Kadari v. Union of India & Ors. (2024 INSC 831) upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, while striking down provisions that allowed the Madarsa Board to confer academic degrees like Fazil and Kamil. The Court carefully distinguished between religious education as a protected right and academic degree-granting as a matter subject to national regulation.
Background of the Case
The 2004 Act was enacted to regulate madarsas in Uttar Pradesh by standardizing curricula and integrating secular subjects alongside Islamic studies. Petitioner Anjum Kadari, through a Public Interest Litigation, contended that the Act violated the principles of secularism, Article 21A (Right to Education), and the UGC Act, 1956, as it permitted the Madarsa Board to grant academic degrees without university recognition.
The Allahabad High Court’s Verdict
In March 2024, the Allahabad High Court struck down the entire Act, holding it unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the Act:
* Promoted religious instruction at public expense,
* Failed to align with the Right to Education Act, 2009, and
* Violated Section 22 of the UGC Act, which reserves the power to grant degrees to recognized universities.
The High Court also directed the State to transition madrasa students into mainstream educational institutions—an order the Supreme Court would later find excessive.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
In November 2024, a Bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Bela M. Trivedi overturned the High Court’s broad ruling. The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Act but struck down the Madarsa Board’s authority to confer academic degrees, holding that:
* The power to grant degrees falls under Entry 66, List I (Union List), and is the exclusive domain of the Union Government.
* The Madarsa Board’s degree-granting power was ultra vires, encroaching upon the Union’s competence and violating the UGC Act.
Key Legal Findings
✅ Secularism and Minority Rights Preserved
The Court reaffirmed India’s model of positive secularism, where the State can engage with all religions equitably. Teaching religious subjects alongside secular ones in madarsas does not violate secularism, particularly when minority institutions are protected under Article 30.
✅ RTE Act Inapplicability
Section 1(5) of the Right to Education Act, 2009, expressly excludes madarsas and minority-run religious institutions. Hence, the petitioner’s reliance on Article 21A was misplaced.
✅ Concurrent Legislative Powers Clarified
While education falls under the Concurrent List (Entry 25, List III), the coordination of standards in higher education, including degree conferral, is within the exclusive competence of Parliament under Entry 66, List I.
Doctrine of Severability Applied
The Supreme Court applied the doctrine of severability, invalidating only the provisions related to academic degrees while preserving the broader statutory framework regulating madarsas. It also stayed the High Court’s direction to shift madrasa students to general schools, holding it to be unjustified judicial overreach.
Broader Significance
This judgment:
* Reasserts the constitutional protection of minority-run educational institutions under Article 30;
* Clarifies the division of legislative powers between the Centre and States;
* Prevents the unregulated issuance of academic credentials, ensuring quality standards in higher education;
* Cautions against judicial overreach that could disrupt established religious-educational ecosystems.
It draws a vital boundary: while religious and minority institutions can function freely, they cannot transgress into regulated academic domains without adhering to national norms.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Anjum Kadari v. Union of India is a progressive and constitutionally grounded judgment that strikes a delicate balance between religious freedom and academic regulation. It validates the role of madarsas in India’s diverse educational landscape while preserving the uniformity and credibility of degree-granting standards. The verdict strengthens constitutional federalism, respects minority rights, and avoids the pitfalls of blanket judicial mandates.
In doing so, the Court has reaffirmed that inclusivity and constitutional discipline must go hand in hand in shaping India’s educational future.
