{"id":13024,"date":"2026-04-14T06:32:16","date_gmt":"2026-04-14T06:32:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=13024"},"modified":"2026-04-14T07:25:39","modified_gmt":"2026-04-14T07:25:39","slug":"two-visions-of-secularism-the-supreme-court-and-allahabad-high-court-on-the-madarsa-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/two-visions-of-secularism-the-supreme-court-and-allahabad-high-court-on-the-madarsa-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Two Visions of Secularism: The Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court on the Madarsa Act"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"introduction\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Hon\u2019ble Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Hon\u2019ble Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra upheld the Madarsa Act. The statute regulates the standard of education in madarsas recognised by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/two-visions-of-secularism-the-supreme-court-and-allahabad-high-court-on-the-madarsa-act\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/two-visions-of-secularism-the-supreme-court-and-allahabad-high-court-on-the-madarsa-act\/#Key_Constitutional_Questions_Raised\" >Key Constitutional Questions Raised<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/two-visions-of-secularism-the-supreme-court-and-allahabad-high-court-on-the-madarsa-act\/#Positive_Secularism_and_Substantive_Equality\" >Positive Secularism and Substantive Equality<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/two-visions-of-secularism-the-supreme-court-and-allahabad-high-court-on-the-madarsa-act\/#Basic_Structure_Of_The_Constitution\" >Basic Structure Of The Constitution<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/two-visions-of-secularism-the-supreme-court-and-allahabad-high-court-on-the-madarsa-act\/#Key_Findings\" >Key Findings<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/two-visions-of-secularism-the-supreme-court-and-allahabad-high-court-on-the-madarsa-act\/#The_Interplay_Of_Article_21-A_And_Article_30\" >The Interplay Of Article 21-A And Article 30<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/two-visions-of-secularism-the-supreme-court-and-allahabad-high-court-on-the-madarsa-act\/#RTE_Act_And_Minority_Rights\" >RTE Act And Minority Rights<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/two-visions-of-secularism-the-supreme-court-and-allahabad-high-court-on-the-madarsa-act\/#High_Court_Observation_On_Education_Quality\" >High Court Observation On Education Quality<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/two-visions-of-secularism-the-supreme-court-and-allahabad-high-court-on-the-madarsa-act\/#Conflict_Between_The_Madarsa_Act_And_The_UGC_Act\" >Conflict Between The Madarsa Act And The UGC Act<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/two-visions-of-secularism-the-supreme-court-and-allahabad-high-court-on-the-madarsa-act\/#UGC_Act_Provisions\" >UGC Act Provisions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/two-visions-of-secularism-the-supreme-court-and-allahabad-high-court-on-the-madarsa-act\/#Constitutional_Conflict_Analysis\" >Constitutional Conflict Analysis<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/two-visions-of-secularism-the-supreme-court-and-allahabad-high-court-on-the-madarsa-act\/#Legislative_Competence\" >Legislative Competence<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/two-visions-of-secularism-the-supreme-court-and-allahabad-high-court-on-the-madarsa-act\/#Does_The_Entire_Legislation_Need_To_Be_Struck_Down\" >Does The Entire Legislation Need To Be Struck Down?<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/two-visions-of-secularism-the-supreme-court-and-allahabad-high-court-on-the-madarsa-act\/#Key_Legal_Findings\" >Key Legal Findings<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/two-visions-of-secularism-the-supreme-court-and-allahabad-high-court-on-the-madarsa-act\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/two-visions-of-secularism-the-supreme-court-and-allahabad-high-court-on-the-madarsa-act\/#High_Court_Findings\" >High Court Findings<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/two-visions-of-secularism-the-supreme-court-and-allahabad-high-court-on-the-madarsa-act\/#Supreme_Court_Vs_High_Court_Approach\" >Supreme Court Vs High Court Approach<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p>In 2019, a Writ Petition was filed before the Hon\u2019ble High Court by a part-time assistant teacher in one of the Madarsas. He sought regularization of his services and salary at par with regular teachers, relying on several provisions of the Madarsa Act and the allied Regulations. By an Order dated 23 October 2019, a Single Judge issued notice on the Writ Petition and observed that certain questions related to the vires of the Madarsa Act arose for consideration, which warranted consideration by a larger bench.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-questions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Constitutional_Questions_Raised\"><\/span>Key Constitutional Questions Raised<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Whether the purpose of the Board is to impart religious education only?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Under a secular Constitution, whether members of a particular religion be appointed to an educational board, or appointments be made without regard to religion, prioritizing individuals who are exponents in the relevant field for which the board is constituted?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether it is arbitrary for Madarsa education<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"positive-secularism-substantive-equality\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Positive_Secularism_and_Substantive_Equality\"><\/span>Positive Secularism and Substantive Equality<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court opined Madarsa Act regulates madarsas to enhance educational standards while preserving their minority character. It establishes a Board to oversee curricula, examinations, and recognition, ensuring compliance with standards for staff, infrastructure, and resources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Enhances educational standards<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Preserves minority character<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Ensures compliance in infrastructure and staffing<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The Act balances reasonable regulation with non-interference in daily administration, fostering substantive equality by empowering minority communities to overcome barriers and participate fully in society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It aligns with the Constitution\u2019s vision of positive secularism and equality, ensuring minority institutions meet academic excellence without compromising their distinct identity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Positive secularism<\/strong> allows the State to treat some persons differently to treat all persons equally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Hon\u2019ble High Court relied on the belief that religion and secular activities must be kept separate, with the State maintaining neutrality and offering equal protection to all religions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"basic-structure-doctrine\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Basic_Structure_Of_The_Constitution\"><\/span>Basic Structure Of The Constitution<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The issue that arose regarding the basic structure before the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court was whether ordinary legislation could be invalidated on the basis of the Basic Structure Doctrine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court examined the validity of statutes in light of the basic structure doctrine, emphasizing that secularism is a fundamental feature of the Constitution, as established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and S. R. Bommai v. Union of India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-findings-basic-structure\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Findings\"><\/span>Key Findings<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Ordinary legislation cannot be invalidated solely for violating the basic structure<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The doctrine primarily applies to constitutional amendments<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Statutes can be challenged only on:\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Lack of legislative competence<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Violation of Fundamental Rights (Part III)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Violation of other constitutional provisions<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>This prevents uncertainties arising from undefined principles such as democracy, federalism etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It was concluded before the Hon\u2019ble Court that a statute challenging secularism must prove an explicit constitutional violation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Hon\u2019ble High Court held that the violation of the Basic Structure Doctrine led to the invalidation of the statute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"article-21a-article-30-interplay\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Interplay_Of_Article_21-A_And_Article_30\"><\/span>The Interplay Of Article 21-A And Article 30<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The interplay of Articles 21-A and 30 highlights the balance between the State&#8217;s obligation to provide free and compulsory education under Article 21-A and the rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"rte-and-minority-rights\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"RTE_Act_And_Minority_Rights\"><\/span>RTE Act And Minority Rights<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The RTE Act furthers Article 21-A<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It exempts minority institutions to safeguard their distinct character<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Ensures regulatory standards for quality education<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Minority institutions must meet regulatory standards to ensure quality secular education alongside religious instruction, striking a balance between excellence and autonomy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Hon\u2019ble High Court erred in deeming Madarsa education violative of Article 21-A, as it contains a specific provision by which it does not apply to minority educational institutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The right of religious minorities to establish and administer madarsas to impart both religious and secular education is protected by Article 30, and the state and the board have sufficient regulatory powers to prescribe and regulate standards of education for the Madarsas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"high-court-observation-education-quality\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"High_Court_Observation_On_Education_Quality\"><\/span>High Court Observation On Education Quality<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Hon\u2019ble High Court held the education provided under the Madarsa Act was violative of Articles 21 and 21-A of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Syllabus focuses primarily on religious education<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Modern subjects like science are optional<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Lack of integrated curriculum<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>This limited education cannot be considered quality education as mandated by the Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Supreme Court emphasized education must be:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Inclusive<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Equal<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Future-oriented<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Denial of modern education amounts to a violation of fundamental rights. Consequently, the education provided under the Madarsa Act is found to be in violation of Articles 21 and 21-A.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"conflict-madarsa-act-ugc-act\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conflict_Between_The_Madarsa_Act_And_The_UGC_Act\"><\/span>Conflict Between The Madarsa Act And The UGC Act<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court has consistently held that higher education is a subject reserved for the Union of India, meaning that State Governments lack the authority to legislate in this domain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"ugc-act-provisions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"UGC_Act_Provisions\"><\/span>UGC Act Provisions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Section 22 allows only Universities to confer degrees<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Madarsas or Boards cannot grant degrees<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"constitutional-conflict-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Constitutional_Conflict_Analysis\"><\/span>Constitutional Conflict Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Aspect<\/th><th>Madarsa Act<\/th><th>UGC Act<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Authority to grant degrees<\/td><td>Madarsa Board<\/td><td>Universities \/ Deemed Universities<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Legal validity<\/td><td>Conflicting provisions<\/td><td>Recognized under law<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Constitutional backing<\/td><td>State legislation<\/td><td>Union List (Entry 66)<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Various sub-sections of Section 9 of the Madarsa Act confer powers to the Madarsa Board with regard to undergraduate, postgraduate and junior research degrees, which are vested in the University Grants Commission under the UGC Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>These fall under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court concluded that these powers align with those given to the University Grants Commission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Consequently, the Madarsa Act was deemed unconstitutional to the extent it violates Article 246(1) of the Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Apex Court and the High Court agreed in this regard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"legislative-competence\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legislative_Competence\"><\/span>Legislative Competence<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Madarsa Act falls within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 25, List III of the Seventh Schedule, which includes &#8220;education&#8221; as a concurrent subject. Education encompasses institutions imparting religious instruction, as their primary aim remains education. The Constitution\u2019s framework permits both Parliament and State legislatures to legislate on education, with the doctrine of pith and substance resolving overlaps.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Entry 25, List III, subject to Entries 63-66 of List I, does not exclude religious education, and no conflicting central legislation exists, as the RTE Act specifically excludes Madarsas. The regulation of minority institutions under Entry 25 has been upheld by the Supreme Court, ensuring it aligns with Article 30 rights. Thus, the challenge to the Act on legislative competence fails.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"validity-of-legislation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Does_The_Entire_Legislation_Need_To_Be_Struck_Down\"><\/span>Does The Entire Legislation Need To Be Struck Down?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court held that only the provisions which relate to Fazil and Kamil are unconstitutional and the Madarsa Act otherwise remains valid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Certain provisions of the Madarsa Act pertaining to the regulation of higher education and the conferment of these degrees have been declared to be unconstitutional due to a lack of legislative competence. According to Article 13(2) of the Constitution, a statute is void only to the extent that it contravenes the Constitution. These provisions can be severed from the legislation. Higher education was a part of the function of the Board and even if these provisions are separated, the Act can continue to be enforced in a real and substantial manner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Hon\u2019ble High Court was of the opinion that in addition to the part of the statute which is in violation of the UGC Act, the other parts of this statute are in violation of the basic structure of the constitution and hence the entire legislation was declared as unconstitutional.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-legal-findings\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Findings\"><\/span>Key Legal Findings<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Only provisions relating to Fazil and Kamil were held unconstitutional.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The doctrine of severability was applied under Article 13(2).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Madarsa Act continues to remain valid in substance.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The High Court had declared the entire Act unconstitutional.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"conclusion\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court concluded that the Madarsa Act regulates the standard of education in Madarsas recognized by the Board and aligns with the State&#8217;s positive obligation to ensure students in recognized Madarsas attain a level of competency to participate in society and earn a living. Article 21-A and the RTE Act must be interpreted consistently with the right of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. The Madarsa Board, with State approval, can enact regulations to ensure religious minority institutions impart secular education while maintaining their minority character.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court found the Madarsa Act within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 25 of List III, but provisions regulating higher education degrees like Fazil and Kamil were deemed unconstitutional due to conflict with the UGC Act, enacted under Entry 66 of List I. The judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 22 March 2024 was set aside, and the petitions were disposed of accordingly. Any pending applications were also disposed of.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"high-court-findings\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"High_Court_Findings\"><\/span>High Court Findings<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Hon\u2019ble High Court declared the Madarsa Act, 2004, unconstitutional, finding it violative of the principle of secularism, which is part of the Constitution&#8217;s basic structure, and infringing upon Articles 14, 21, and 21-A. It also contravened Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. The validity of Section 1(5) of the R.T.E. Act was not addressed, as the Madarsa Act was already deemed ultra vires.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The State Government was directed to integrate the student studying in the madarsa into recognized regular schools, ensuring sufficient seats or new schools as needed. Additionally, the State must ensure that children aged 6 to 14 are not excluded from admission to recognized institutions. The writ petition Writ-C No. 6049 of 2023 was allowed, and other related cases were returned to the appropriate courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"supreme-court-vs-high-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Supreme_Court_Vs_High_Court_Approach\"><\/span>Supreme Court Vs High Court Approach<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Aspect<\/th><th>Supreme Court Approach<\/th><th>High Court Approach<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Interpretation Style<\/td><td>Pragmatic and balanced<\/td><td>Rights-based and structural<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Focus<\/td><td>Legislative competence, minority rights, and education access<\/td><td>Secularism and fundamental rights<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Outcome<\/td><td>Partial invalidation (Fazil &amp; Kamil)<\/td><td>Entire Act declared unconstitutional<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Legal Basis<\/td><td>Articles 21-A, 29, 30 and Entry 25 List III<\/td><td>Articles 14, 21, 21-A and basic structure doctrine<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>The Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court and the High Court adopted distinct approaches in addressing the constitutional validity of the respective statutes. The Supreme Court adopted a pragmatic approach, balancing the State\u2019s legislative competence, minority rights under Articles 29 and 30, and obligations under Article 21-A and the RTE Act. It upheld the Act\u2019s regulatory framework for secular education in madarsas while invalidating provisions conflicting with the UGC Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On the contrary, Hon\u2019ble the High Court approached the Act from a rightsbased perspective, emphasizing secularism as part of the Constitution&#8217;s basic structure and invoking Articles 14, 21, and 21-A to declare the Act unconstitutional. Its approach was rooted in safeguarding secular principles and ensuring uniformity in the educational framework for all children.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Hon\u2019ble Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Hon\u2019ble Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra upheld the Madarsa Act. The statute regulates the standard of education in madarsas recognised by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education. In 2019, a Writ Petition was filed before the Hon\u2019ble High<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":656,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-13024","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-constitutional-law"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13024","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/656"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13024"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13024\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22016,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13024\/revisions\/22016"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13024"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13024"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13024"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}