Question 1

The Supreme Court completely insulated Madarsas from state regulation to protect minority rights.

Accepted Answer

The Court explicitly held that the right to administer under Article 30 is not absolute. The state has the constitutional power to regulate standards of education, syllabus, and teacher qualifications to ensure students are capable of earning a livelihood.

Question 2

The Supreme Court ruled that Madarsas cannot teach religious subjects anymore.

Accepted Answer

The Court distinguished between 'religious education' (which is permissible and protects minority culture) and 'religious instruction' (which is prohibited in state-maintained institutions under Article 28). Madarsas can continue imparting religious education.

Question 3

Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court judgment on the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004:
1. The Supreme Court ruled that a statutory law can be struck down solely on the ground of violating the basic structure doctrine.
2. The regulation of general Madarsa education by the state government is traceable to Entry 25 of the Concurrent List.
3. The Supreme Court struck down the provisions of the Act regulating Fazil and Kamil degrees as they conflicted with Entry 66 of the Union List.
How many of the statements given above are correct?

Accepted Answer

(b) Only two — Statement 1 is incorrect. The Supreme Court explicitly clarified that a statute can only be struck down for violating fundamental rights (Part III) or exceeding legislative competence, not for merely violating the basic structure itself. Statements 2 and 3 are correct. Education is under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, while higher education standards (which conflict with the UGC Act for Fazil/Kamil degrees) fall under Entry 66 of the Union List.

Question 4

Match List I (Legal Concept/Provision) with List II (Relevant Context in the UP Madarsa Act Judgment):

List I:
A. Article 21A
B. Entry 66 of Union List
C. Entry 25 of Concurrent List
D. Article 30

List II:
1. Gives the state legislative competence to regulate the standard of schooling in Madarsas.
2. Must be harmoniously read with the autonomy of minority educational institutions, as reflected in the RTE Act's exemptions.
3. Protects the right of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.
4. Vests exclusive power in the Parliament to determine standards in higher education, invalidating the state's Kamil and Fazil degrees.

Accepted Answer

(a) A-2, B-4, C-1, D-3 — Article 21A (Right to Education) must be read harmoniously with minority rights, as the RTE Act exempts minority institutions (A-2). Entry 66 of the Union List gives Parliament exclusive power over higher education standards, which is why the state's regulation of Fazil/Kamil degrees was struck down (B-4). Entry 25 of the Concurrent List allows the state to regulate general education (C-1). Article 30 guarantees minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions (D-3).

Question 5

Assertion (A): The Supreme Court struck down the provisions of the UP Madarsa Act, 2004 that regulated the granting of Fazil and Kamil degrees.
Reason (R): The Uttar Pradesh state legislature lacks the legislative competence to regulate higher education degrees as this power exclusively belongs to the Union government under Entry 66 of List I.

Accepted Answer

(a) Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A — The UP Madarsa Board granted higher education degrees like Fazil (bachelor's) and Kamil (master's). The Supreme Court struck this down because the coordination and determination of standards in higher education fall exclusively under Entry 66 of the Union List (List I). Thus, the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act prevails, and the state legislature cannot bypass it to regulate higher education degrees.

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of UP Madarsa Act

SC Directs No-Fault Compensation for Vaccine Adverse Events