In a recent hearing, the State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the Allahabad High Court’s decision to entirely invalidate the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004. Arguing before the Supreme Court, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj contended that only specific, problematic provisions of the Act should have been targeted, rather than striking down the legislation in full.
During the proceedings before a bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Nataraj asserted, “The entire Act need not be struck down. Changes can be made selectively, with a focus on examining specific provisions, particularly given that the rest of the provisions primarily serve a regulatory purpose.” This stance was aimed at preserving portions of the Act while allowing for amendments where necessary.
The dialogue in court intensified when Chief Justice Chandrachud probed the state’s commitment to the legislation, questioning, “Do you stand by your legislation? Do we take it on record that you stand by your counter submitted before the High Court… you are here for the State of UP, right?” In response, Nataraj clarified that while the state accepted the High Court’s judgment and did not pursue further appeals, the Act’s complete nullification was still contested.
The Supreme Court is revisiting the matter through a Special Leave Petition (SLP) led by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, representing Anjum Kadari. Guruswamy challenged the High Court’s approach, arguing that it erroneously assumed suo moto cognizance to entirely strike down the Act, which had initially been questioned on different grounds. The Supreme Court has stayed the High Court’s judgment since April, pending a more thorough review.
Chief Justice Chandrachud also reflected on the broader implications, recognizing the state’s legitimate interest in facilitating quality education but questioning the rationale behind completely discarding the Act. He expressed concerns over whether such drastic measures were justified when the aim was to enhance educational contributions to society.
The Allahabad High Court had initially struck down the Act based on a petition that highlighted its failure to align with constitutional principles of secularism and equality before the law, pointing out that the education it provided was neither equivalent to nor as universal as that offered by regular state-recognized institutions.
