Latest
Wednesday, October 21, 2026
Supreme Court of India
Constitutional Law

U.P. Madarsa Act Upheld Except Fazil and Kamil Provisions; Secularism Breach Must Be Traced to Express Provisions

Published: · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's judgment striking down the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004. A statute cannot be invalidated merely for violating the basic structure; a breach of secularism must be traced to express constitutional provisions. The Act is a regulatory law within Entry 25, List III, but its provisions on the higher-education degrees of Fazil and Kamil conflict with the UGC Act and are invalid (paras 73, 104).

U.P. Madarsa Act Upheld Except Fazil and Kamil Provisions; Secularism Breach Must Be Traced to Express Provisions

Judgment Intelligence

Disposed Of
Anjum Kadari & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
2024 INSC 831
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8541 of 2024 with SLP (C) Nos. 7857, 7821, 7878, 7890 and 13038 of 2024, Contempt Petition (C) No. 591 of 2024 and Transfer Petition (C) No. 2697 of 2024
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
5 November 2024
Bench
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
Relevant Acts & Sections
Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004; University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - Section 22; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21-A, 28, 30 and 246, Entry 25 of List III and Entry 66 of List I; Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
Final Outcome

Petitions disposed of: the High Court's judgment of 22 March 2024 was set aside, the Act upheld except the provisions regulating Fazil and Kamil degrees, and pending applications disposed of (paras 104-106).

Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — judgment dated 05.11.2024

Key holdings

  1. The U.P. Madarsa Act regulates the standard of education in Madarsas recognised by the Board (para 104).
  2. The Act is consistent with the State's positive obligation to ensure that students attain a level of competency (paras 72, 104).
  3. Article 21-A and the RTE Act must be read consistently with minorities' rights to run institutions of their choice (paras 79, 104).
  4. The Act falls within Entry 25, List III, but its Fazil and Kamil provisions conflict with the UGC Act (paras 99, 104).
  5. Invalid provisions are severed and the rest of the statute survives (paras 101, 103).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The Madarsa Act established a Board to regulate, among other things, the standards of education, teacher qualifications and examinations in Madarsas in Uttar Pradesh (para 1). About 13,364 Madarsas teach over twelve lakh students in the State (para 6). In 2019 a single judge hearing a part-time teacher's petition referred questions on the Act's validity to a larger bench (para 25). On 22 March 2024 the High Court held the Act violative of secularism, Articles 14, 21 and 21-A and Section 22 of the UGC Act, struck it down in full and directed that students be moved to regular schools (paras 28-29). This Court stayed that judgment on 5 April 2024 (para 31).

Court's Findings

Secularism is embodied in Part III, including the equality code of Articles 14 to 16 and Articles 25 to 30 (paras 38-46). Following the majority in Indira Nehru Gandhi and State of Karnataka, a statute can be struck down only for want of legislative competence or for breach of Part III or another express provision, not for violating the basic structure as such (paras 50-51, 55). The Act regulates the standard of education in recognised Madarsas, and that regulation is reasonable and does not interfere with their day-to-day administration (paras 65, 68-69). It is consistent with the State's positive obligation and furthers substantive equality for the minority community (paras 72-73). The Article 21-A objection failed because the RTE Act excludes minority institutions and Article 30 protects Madarsas imparting religious and secular education (para 79). Education that includes religious instruction remains within Entry 25, List III (paras 85, 90). Entry 25 is subject to Entry 66, List I, so the provisions on Fazil and Kamil degrees conflict with Section 22 of the UGC Act (para 99). Those provisions are severable, and the High Court erred in striking down the whole Act (paras 100, 103).

Legal Principle

A statute can be invalidated only for lack of legislative competence or for violating Part III or another express provision of the Constitution, so a challenge based on secularism must be traced to such provisions (paras 55, 73). A State may regulate the educational standards of minority institutions without destroying their minority character (para 104).

Precedents Relied Upon

  1. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain 1975 Supp SCC 1
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 48, 50

    The majority held that the validity of a statute cannot be challenged for violating the basic structure.

  2. State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977) 4 SCC 608
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 51

    The validity of a statute cannot be tested for violation of the basic structure of the Constitution.

  3. Bihar State Madarasa Education Board v. Madarasa Hanfia Arabic College (1990) 1 SCC 428
    Applied Discussed at ¶ 66

    The State has the power to regulate the administration of minority educational institutions.

View all precedents (6)
  1. Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 1
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 76

    A law under Article 21-A cannot abrogate the right of minorities under Article 30.

  2. Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh (2005) 5 SCC 420
    Applied Discussed at ¶ 94

    State provisions on universities that conflict with the UGC Act are unconstitutional.

  3. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India 1957 SCC OnLine SC 11
    Applied Discussed at ¶ 102

    The doctrine of severability: valid provisions survive the invalid ones.

NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 3 min read
Decided: November 5, 2024 Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and J...
PDF
 Join our WhatsApp Group
✕

Try: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt