In a pivotal ruling, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, upheld the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004. The Court ruled that legislation cannot be struck down solely on the grounds of violating the “basic structure” doctrine unless it conflicts with specific constitutional provisions or fundamental rights. This decision clarifies the limitations of the basic structure doctrine, specifically as it applies to state legislation, reiterating that it primarily guards against unconstitutional amendments rather than being a test for ordinary laws.
Case Background: The Challenge to the Madarsa Act
The case arose when the Allahabad High Court struck down the UP Madarsa Education Act earlier this year, declaring it unconstitutional due to alleged violations of secularism under Articles 14, 21, and 21-A of the Indian Constitution. The Act, which regulates the curriculum, teacher qualifications, and administration of Madarsas in Uttar Pradesh, had been contested by petitioners on grounds that it entangled religious education with state oversight, breaching India’s secular principles. They argued that the Act prioritized religious instruction in institutions funded or supported by the state, contravening the essential secular fabric of India.
The petitioners, led by senior advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mr. Salman Khurshid, and Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, contended that Madarsas should remain independent in terms of religious education without state interference. They further argued that state oversight of Madarsas imposed a secular standard onto inherently religious institutions, creating an unconstitutional overlap.
Representing the state, Additional Solicitor General Mr. KM Natraj argued that the Madarsa Act’s purpose was regulatory rather than religious. According to him, the Act aimed to ensure quality education in Madarsas by standardizing teaching methods and expanding curriculums to include secular subjects like math, science, and social studies. He contended that the Act was necessary to support the educational development of Madarsa students while maintaining the autonomy of these minority institutions.
Key Issues and Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court faced two central questions:
1. Does the Basic Structure Doctrine Apply to State Legislation?
2. Does the UP Madarsa Act Violate the Secular Principles of the Constitution?
Basic Structure Doctrine and its Limits on State Laws
The Court clarified the application of the basic structure doctrine, which typically restricts Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized that the doctrine cannot be extended to strike down ordinary state legislation unless it violates specific constitutional provisions, such as those enshrined in Part III (Fundamental Rights). In a defining observation, he stated:
“The basic structure doctrine serves as a safeguard for the Constitution’s foundational principles; however, it does not provide grounds for invalidating state laws unless they directly conflict with explicit constitutional provisions.”
This observation underscores that the doctrine is not a blanket test for all legislation but a measure specifically applied to prevent changes to the Constitution’s core structure through amendments.
Secularism and the Role of State-Funded Religious Education
The petitioners argued that the Act’s provisions, which included curriculum oversight by a state-regulated board, breached the secular character of the Constitution by indirectly supporting religious instruction. The Court, however, drew a line between religious “instruction” and general “religious education,” clarifying that while direct religious instruction cannot be state-funded, general religious studies can coexist with secular subjects in minority institutions.
Chief Justice Chandrachud further noted:
“Secularism, while fundamental to the Constitution, does not prohibit the state from enacting laws to regulate educational standards in minority institutions that choose to impart both religious and secular education. As long as state funds are not exclusively appropriated for religious instruction, regulatory legislation like the Madarsa Act is permissible.”
The Court found that the Act did not compel or fund religious instruction but allowed Madarsas to offer secular subjects alongside their traditional curriculum. This balance, the Court held, was aligned with the constitutional mandate to protect minority rights under Articles 29 and 30.
Case Title: Anjum Kadari & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8541 of 2024 (and connected petitions)
