while support constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 – except in so far as it regulated higher education degrees – the Supreme Court observed that the Act promoted substantial equality of the minority community.

A bank that encompasses President of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra put aside judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had struck down the Act as unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court observed that the Act was a regulatory statute which ensured that the recognized Madrasas complied with certain minimum standards of education.

“The Madarsa Act secures the interests of the minority community in Uttar Pradesh as it: (i) regulates the standard of education provided by recognized Madarsas; and (ii) conduct examinations and award certificates to students, enabling them to pursue higher education The Madarsa Law is consistent with the positive obligation of the state to ensure that students studying in recognized Madarsa achieve a minimum level of proficiency that allows them. to effectively participate in society and earn a living. Therefore, the Madarsa Act promotes substantive equality for the minority community. CJI DY Chandrachud wrote in the judgment.

“The High Court erred in holding that a statute is liable to be struck down if it violates the basic structure. The invalidation of a statute on the grounds of violation of secularism must be pursued in the express provisions of the Constitution. Further, the fact that the state legislature established a board to recognize and regulate Madarsa education does not violate Article 14. The Madarsa Act promotes substantive equality,” added the ruling.

Positive secularism allows the state to treat some people differently in order to treat all equally

The Court invoked the concept of “positive secularism” in its judgment thus:

“The positive concept of secularism requires the state to take active steps to treat minority institutions on par with secular institutions while allowing them to retain their minority character. Positive secularism allows the state to treat some people differently in order to treat all people equally. of positive secularism finds consonance in the principle of substantive equality”.

Substantive equality, as opposed to formal equality, aims to eliminate individual, institutional and systemic discrimination against disadvantaged groups that effectively undermines their full and equal social, economic, political and cultural participation in society, the Court explained. The adoption of special provisions or the granting of preferential treatment by the state allows the disadvantaged individual or community to overcome social and economic barriers and participate in society on equal terms.

Other reports on the ruling can be read Here.

Case Details: Anjum Kadari and another v. Union of India and others Journal no. 14432-2024, Madaris Arabiya Managers Association UP v. Union of India SLP(C) no. 7821/2024 and related matters.