Context

• The Supreme Court’s ruling in Anjum Qadri vs Union of India has upheld the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Madarsa Act, 2004, overruling the Allahabad High Court’s decision to strike it down.
• This judgment has profound implications for madarsas (Islamic religious schools) and their students, providing clarity on the relationship between religious education and secularism, minority rights, and the state’s regulatory powers.
• The Court's decision underscores critical aspects of constitutional law, focusing on the concepts of secularism, the right to religious education, and the regulation of educational institutions.

Background of the Case and the SC's Approach

• Background of the Case
  • The Allahabad HC had previously ruled that the Madarsa Act, which regulates the functioning of madarsas in Uttar Pradesh, violated the principle of secularism enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
  • It argued that the Act, by requiring madarsas to comply with state education norms, interfered with their religious character.
  • The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) also intervened, criticising the quality of education in madarsas.
  • The commission suggested that it violated the right to education under Article 21A, which mandates free and compulsory education for children aged 6-14.
• Supreme Court’s Disagreement with High Court Ruling
  • The Supreme Court disagreed with High Court ruling, emphasising that the Basic Structure doctrine should be applied strictly to constitutional amendments rather than to ordinary laws such as the UP Madarsa Act.
    • The Basic Structure doctrine is a judicial principle that protects the fundamental framework of the Constitution.
  • As stated by former Chief Justice A.N. Ray, applying this doctrine too broadly could lead courts to essentially rewrite the Constitution, introducing an element of unpredictability.
  • Instead, CJI D.Y. Chandrachud argued that for ordinary legislation, judicial review should focus solely on legislative competence and consistency with fundamental rights, steering away from abstract concepts like secularism, democracy, and federalism.

A Detailed Analysis of Supreme Court’s Observations

• Emphasis on Positive Secularism
  • One of the central themes of the judgment was the concept of secularism, a matter of considerable constitutional debate.
  • The Court reaffirmed the interpretation of secularism in the 1994 S R Bommai case, which had emphasised the positive aspect of secularism as equal treatment of all religions.
  • The court argued that by regulating and recognising madarsa education, the state was not undermining secularism but rather ensuring that minority communities have access to quality education, in line with their rights under Articles 25 to 30 of the Constitution.
    • Articles 25 to 30 of the Indian Constitution cover the Right to Freedom of Religion and certain Cultural and Educational Rights for minorities.
  • Secularism, in this view, is not about eliminating religious institutions but rather ensuring that all religious groups are treated equally and fairly under the law.
• SC’s Comment on State’s Responsibility and Involvement in Maintaining Secularism
  • The judgment also underscored the idea that the state's involvement in religious education should aim at substantive equality.
  • The court pointed out that it is the state's responsibility to create an environment in which all citizens, regardless of religion, can access education of equal quality.
  • This perspective aligns with the broader constitutional commitment to equality, as enshrined in Articles 14 and 15.
    • Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution are part of the Right to Equality, ensuring that every individual is treated equally under the law.
  • The court rejected the notion that secularism required the complete separation of religion from education, recognising that religious education could coexist with secular education, provided it did not infringe on the rights of others.
• Religious Rights and State Control over Minority Institutions
  • Another significant aspect of the judgment was its interpretation of Articles 26 and 30 of the constitution, which protect the rights of religious minorities to establish and manage educational institutions.
  • The court noted that madarsas, as institutions established for religious and charitable purposes, are entitled to state protection under Article 26.
  • However, it also clarified that the state has a legitimate interest in ensuring the quality of education provided in these institutions, especially given the obligations of Article 21A, which mandates compulsory education for children.
• SC’s Comment on Autonomy Rights of Minority Institutions
  • The court acknowledged that while minority institutions, including madarsas, are entitled to autonomy, this right is not absolute.
  • The state can regulate these institutions to ensure that the education they provide meets certain standards.
  • However, such regulation cannot infringe upon the fundamental character of the institution as a religious body.
  • In this context, the judgment cited previous rulings that stressed the need to balance the right to manage religious institutions with the state’s duty to ensure that education in these institutions adheres to minimum standards.

SC’s Observation on Challenges to Madarsa Education and Recognition of Degrees

• Comment on Criticism of the Quality of Madarsa Education
  • The judgment also addressed the criticism that madarsa education is of poor quality, particularly in comparison to secular institutions.
  • The court pointed out that the state’s obligation to ensure quality education under Article 21A applies universally, including to madarsas.
  • However, the Court rejected the argument that madarsas violate this right merely because their education is religious in nature.
  • It emphasised that religious education is distinct from religious instruction, and the Constitution allows for the former within the framework of minority institutions.
• Observation on Recognition of Madarsa Degrees
  • Despite recognising the value of madarsa education, the Court did note the challenge regarding the non-recognition of degrees like Fazil and Kamil under the UP Madarsa Act.
  • These degrees, which are issued by madarsas, are not recognised by the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act of 1956, leading to limitations for madarsa graduates in accessing mainstream higher education.
  • However, the Court suggested that such degrees should not be an obstacle for madarsa graduates pursuing courses in theology or Islamic studies at universities, as recognition of these degrees does not inherently undermine the standards of higher education.

Significance of the Supreme Court’s Ruling: Upholding the Concept of Positive Secularism

• Positive secularism is a concept that involves the state actively promoting religious harmony and respect for all religions, while not separating religion from the state altogether.
• This ruling emphasises the importance of balancing the rights of minority religious groups with the state’s duty to provide equal and quality education to all citizens.
• While the judgment provides relief to madarsa students and institutions, it also sets the stage for ongoing discussions about the role of religious education in a secular state and the need for regulatory frameworks that respect both religious freedom and educational standards.
• The case exemplifies the complex relationship between secularism, religious rights, and the state’s role in ensuring that all citizens, regardless of their religious background, have access to education that meets constitutional and legal requirements.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court's judgment in the Anjum Qadri case has reinforced the constitutional principles of equality, religious freedom, and the state's duty to regulate educational standards.
• By upholding the UP Madarsa Act, the Court affirmed that madarsas, as religious institutions, have the right to impart education within the boundaries set by the Constitution.
• However, it also acknowledged the state's responsibility to ensure that this education meets certain standards of quality.