desk
Share
News Topical, Digital Desk : The Allahabad High Court has taken a strong stance on the National Human Rights Commission's (NHRC) orders to investigate madrasas, issuing sharp comments and placing an interim stay on the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) investigation into 588 aided madrasas in Uttar Pradesh. The court has also sought a response from the Human Rights Commission in this matter.
During the hearing, the High Court's division bench raised serious questions about the Human Rights Commission's functioning and priorities, as well as its jurisdiction. In its written order, the court sharply remarked that the Commission often remains silent when incidents like mob lynching occur against members of the Muslim community, yet now it is going beyond its scope and ordering investigations into madrasas.
Harsh comment on Human Rights Commission
This order was issued by a division bench of Justices Atul Shridharan and Vivek Saran while hearing a petition filed by the Madrasa Teachers Association. However, the two judges of the division bench hearing the case issued separate orders.
Justice Atul Shridharan made his comments on the NHRC in a separate order. Justice Vivek Saran issued a separate order stating that he disagreed with Justice Shridharan's comments in paragraphs 6 and 7 and was recusing himself. It is believed that due to differences within the hearing bench, the matter may be referred to a larger bench.
Know what is the whole matter?
This case stems from an order issued in February by the Human Rights Commission, based on a complaint, directing the EOW to investigate alleged irregularities in 588 madrasas in Uttar Pradesh. Following this, the state government implemented the order and initiated the investigation.
During the hearing, the petitioners argued that the Human Rights Commission had no legal authority to order such a financial or criminal investigation. The High Court agreed, stating that prima facie the Commission's order was inconsistent with the law and appeared to be beyond its jurisdiction. The court held that the issue of madrasas was not within the scope of human rights.
The court declared the commission's order as wrong.
The court clarified that the Human Rights Commission's jurisdiction is limited to matters related to life, liberty, equality, and dignity under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Therefore, ordering an investigation into an institution without a clear human rights violation is not appropriate.
The court also stated that such cases could have been brought directly to the High Court through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), where appropriate orders would have been passed after a judicial review. Instead, the Commission's directive to the executive to investigate is contrary to judicial procedure.
Considering the matter serious, the High Court has temporarily halted the investigation and issued a notice to the Human Rights Commission, directing it to file a response.
The next hearing in this case is scheduled for May 11. It is believed that the decision in this case could set an important precedent in the future regarding the powers of the Human Rights Commission and the limits of administrative interference in educational institutions.
--Advertisement--
