A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has shown disagreement regarding remarks made against the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in a case involving alleged irregularities in numerous madrassas in Uttar Pradesh. The issue arose during a hearing of a writ petition filed by the Teachers Association, Madaris Arabia, and others contesting proceedings linked to an NHRC complaint.
Justice Atul Sreedharan expressed initial concern over the NHRC considering a complaint alleging that 588 madrassas, in collaboration with officials of the Minority Welfare Department of the Uttar Pradesh government, were obtaining grants despite lacking educational standards, infrastructure, and qualified teachers. The complaint also mentioned that appointments were being obtained through illicit means.
Referring to the NHRC’s directive to the Director General, Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Uttar Pradesh, to investigate the allegations and submit an action taken report, Justice Sreedharan found the order issued by the human rights body surprising. He raised doubts on whether such directions could be given to executive authorities in a scenario not directly linked to human rights issues.
Justice Vivek Saran, in a separate opinion, disagreed with the critical comments regarding the NHRC’s role. He emphasized the importance of all concerned parties being heard before passing orders that touch upon the merits of a case or the role of the NHRC. Justice Saran specifically dissented from certain factual and legal observations in Justice Sreedharan’s order.
The case has been scheduled to be linked with another ongoing writ petition and set for a hearing on May 11. However, due to the differing opinions, the matter is likely to be referred to the Chief Justice for further consideration.
