Allahabad HC bench split over NHRC-ordered probe against madrasas

E-PaperSubscribeSubscribeEnjoy unlimited accessSubscribe Now! Get features like A division bench of the Allahabad High Court has issued separate interim orders following a disagreement over a National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) probe into 558 government-aided madrasas in Uttar Pradesh. Justice Sreedharan said NHRC was seen dabbling in matters that prima facie do not concern them. but failed to act on issues that didThe bench was hearing a writ petition filed by the Teachers Association Madaris Arabia challenging an investigation launched by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) in Lucknow after NHRC intervention. Justice Atul Sreedharan criticised the NHRC, observing that the commission failed to take suo motu cognisance in matters involving assaults and lynchings targeting the Muslim community, and issued notices seeking a response in the matter. Justice Vivek Saran, however, disagreed with the remarks, maintaining that it was improper to make adverse observations against the NHRC without the body being represented in court. The two-judge bench adjourned the case to a later date. The NHRC had passed the order after hearing a complaint filed by Mohammad Talha Ansari alleging that 558 madrasas were operating in collusion with officers of the Minority Welfare Department and were receiving government grants without meeting the required standards. Acting on the complaint, the NHRC had passed orders on February 28, April 23, and June 11, prompting the state government to issue a consequential order for the inquiry on April 23 last year. On September 22 last year, the high court had stayed the EOW investigation against 558 government-aided madrasas and sought a response from the state government. Justice Sreedharan questioned the NHRC’s power to order probe against madrasas, saying: “Instead of taking suo motu cognisance in which members of the Muslim community are attacked and at times lynched in some cases, and where cases are not registered against perpetrators or not investigated properly, the Human Rights Commissions are seen dabbling in matters that prima facie do not concern them.” Both the judges authored the two orders dated April 27 separately. Stressing the harassment faced by people belonging to different communities over the nature of their relationships, Justice Sreedharan said that even having a cup of coffee at a public place with a person of a different religion becomes a fearful act sometimes. “In such cases, no instance has been placed before this Court whether the State Human Rights Commission or the National Human Rights Commission took suo motu cognizance. But instead it has the time to entertain matters which would fall within the precincts of the High Court under Article 226 and which could effectively render justice,” Justice Sreedharan said. Justice Saran, however, said, “Since various facts have been mentioned in paragraph nos. 6 and 7, with which I do not agree, I differ from the order as has been dictated by brother Justice Atul Sreedharan.” He added that if any order touching on the merits of the case or even touching on the role of the NHRC had to be passed, then all parties concerned ought to have been heard. “I am also conscious of the fact that a writ court can pass an order even in the absence of any particular party, however, in the instant case, when in Paragraph Nos. 6 and 7, certain definite observations were being made, then it would have been in the fitness of things that parties were properly represented in the Court. In the absence of the parties, no adverse observations were required,” justice Saran said.