Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Chief Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrassa Education Act, 2004.          

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Anjum Kadari and Another v. Union of India and others. 

What is the Background of Anjum Kadari and Another v. Union of India and others. Case? 

• The Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrassa Education Act, 2004 (Madarsa Act) was passed and it’s constitutionality was challenged. 
• The Madarsa Act established the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education, to regulate, among other things, the standards of education, qualifications for teachers, and conduct of examinations in Madarsas in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 
• The High Court of Allahabad held that the Act was unconstitutional on the ground that it violates the principle of secularism and Article 14 and 21A of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
• The present appeal has been filed against the above decision before the Supreme Court.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Principle of Secularism: 
  • The Court held that although the term ‘secular’ has been introduced by way of 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, the amendment has merely made explicit what was already implicit according to the scheme of the Constitution. 
  • It was observed by the Court that secularism is one the facets of right to equality. 
  • The equality code provides that all persons irrespective of their religion should have equal access to participate in the society and at the same time prohibits the State from mixing religion with any secular activity. 
  • Also, the equality code imposes obligation on the State to provide equal treatment to all persons irrespective of their religion, faith or beliefs. 
• Basic Structure Doctrine and Ordinary statute: 
  • The Court held that there are two grounds on which a statute can held to be ultra vires: 
    • It is beyond the ambit of legislative competence of the Legislature. 
    • It violates Part III or any other provision of the COI. 
  • The Court held that the Constitution does not provide that the legislation is subject to any other constitutional limitation and if the basic structure doctrine is applied to test the validity of any statute it would amount to rewriting the Constitution.
  • The reason why a statute cannot be struck down on the ground of violation of basic structure has been enunciated by the Court as follows: 
    • The concepts like democracy, federalism and secularism are undefined concepts. 
    • Allowing courts to strike down legislation for violation of such concepts will introduce an element of uncertainty in our constitutional adjudication. 
• Regulation of Minority Institutions 
  • The Court held that the Madrasa Act furthers substantive equality for the minority community. 
  • It was further held that it is i9n the interest of the State to maintain the standard of education in minority educational institutions. 
  • The Court held that the Madarsa Act secures the interests of the minority community in Uttar Pradesh because: 
    • it regulates the standard of education imparted by the recognised Madarsas 
    • it conducts examinations and confers certificates to students, allowing them the opportunity to pursue higher education. 
  • The Act ensures that students studying in the recognised Madarsas attain a minimum level of competency which will allow them to effectively participate in society and earn a living.  
• Interplay between Article 21A and Article 30 of COI 
  • Article 21-A and the Right to Education Act, 2009 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 institutions impart secular education of a requisite standard without destroying their minority character 
• It was held that although most of the provisions were constitutionally valid there are certain provisions which pertain to regulation of higher education and conferment of degrees which should not be held as constitutional as the State Legislature lacks legislative competency in this regard.  
• Thus, the Court held that the above provision that are beyond the competency of the State Legislature must be severed from rest of the provisions and the rest of the legislation must be upheld as constitutional. 

What is the Madarsa Act? 

• Overview of the Act: 
  • The Act aimed to regulate and govern the functioning of madrasas (Islamic educational institutions) in the state of Uttar Pradesh. 
    • It provided a framework for the establishment, recognition, curriculum, and administration of madrasas across Uttar Pradesh. 
• Under this Act, the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education was established to oversee and supervise the activities of madrasas in the state. 
• Concerns Regarding the Act: 
  • Constitutional Violation: 
    • The act has been deemed unconstitutional by the Allahabad HC, as it promotes education segregated along religious lines, contradicting the principle of secularism enshrined in the Indian Constitution and fundamental rights. 
    • The Act's provisions were criticised for failing to ensure quality compulsory education up to the age of 14 years, as mandated by Article 21 A of the Constitution. 
    • Concerns were raised regarding the exclusion of madrasas from the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009 potentially depriving students of universal and quality school education. 
  • Limited Curriculum: 
    • Upon examination of madrasa syllabi, the court noted a curriculum heavily focused on Islamic studies, with limited emphasis on modern subjects. 
    • Students were required to study Islam and its doctrines to progress, with modern subjects often included as optional or offered minimally. 
  • Conflict with Higher Education Standards: 
    • The Act was deemed to conflict with Section 22 of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, 1956, raising questions about its compatibility with higher education standards. 

What are the Grounds on which a Legislation can be Struck Down ? 

• Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) 
  • Chief Justice AN Ray in this case held that the constitutional validity of a statute depends entirely on the existence of the legislative power and the express provision in Article 13. 
  • Since the legislation is not subject to any other constitutional limitation, applying the basic structure doctrine to test the validity of a statute will amount to “rewriting the Constitution.  
• Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006): 
  • A Constitution bench in this case held that legislation cannot be challenged on the grounds that it violates the basic structure of the Constitution.  
  • Statutes can only be challenged when they violate the provisions of the Constitution.  
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2016) 
  • The Court in this case was deciding the constitutionality of the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014. 
  • Justice JS Kehar in this case held that a challenge to ordinary legislation for violation of basic structure would only be a technical flaw.