The court asks authorities to present full records by May 4; Muslim organisations welcome move, say mass probe without clear grounds harms trust
PRAYAGRAJ/LUCKNOW — The Allahabad High Court has raised serious concerns over the large-scale investigation of madrasas in Uttar Pradesh, asking the state government and the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) to explain the basis of their action.
Hearing a petition related to the issue on Tuesday, the court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government and the ATS to submit all relevant records and documents by 4 May, when the matter will be heard again.
The case relates to reports that more than 4,000 madrasas in the state were brought under scrutiny by the ATS, largely on the basis of suspicion regarding their funding and infrastructure.
The bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satyaveer Singh made it clear during the hearing that such wide-ranging action cannot be justified without clear and specific grounds.
The court observed that government orders did not mention the names of particular madrasas, nor did they provide concrete details about alleged sources of terror funding or any direct link.
“In the absence of specific material, such large-scale inquiry raises serious questions,” the bench indicated, asking the authorities to clarify the legal and factual basis of the investigation.
The petition was filed by the Teachers Association Madarsa Arabia UP and the management committee of Madarsa Faruqiya Nadwa. Senior advocate V K Singh and advocate Mohammad Ali Ausaf appeared for the petitioners and presented their arguments before the court.
They told the bench that a list of around 4,000 madrasas — including aided, unaided and private institutions — had earlier been prepared through a survey and submitted to the minority welfare department. Based on this, the government reportedly raised doubts about funding sources and large buildings, leading to the ATS inquiry.
Petitioners argued that such action falls outside the jurisdiction of the ATS and may be inconsistent with the Madarsa Board Act 2004 and Madarsa Rules 2016.
Reacting to the court’s observations, association general secretary Diwan Sahab Zaman Khan welcomed the development.
“This order reflects the strength of the Constitution and the independence of the judiciary,” he said. “The court has recognised, at least at the initial stage, that the ongoing inquiry raises legal concerns.”
He added, “This will help stop the spread of misinformation about madrasas and bring out the facts.”
The issue has created concern among many in the Muslim community, who say that the scale of the investigation has affected both institutions and students.
A madrasa teacher said, “Continuous scrutiny without clear reasons creates fear. It also affects the learning environment for students.”
Another education worker added, “Madrasas are part of the education system. Any action should be based on proper evidence, not general suspicion.”
Officials, on the other hand, have maintained that the inquiry is focused on examining financial transactions, bank accounts and construction-related funding, especially where foreign or unusual sources are suspected.
However, madrasa organisations have questioned the scope of the probe, particularly the demand for access to private financial records, and whether such steps fall within legal limits.
Education groups have also warned that prolonged investigations could disrupt academic activities and impact students’ futures.
Legal experts say the case could set an important precedent regarding how investigative agencies act in matters involving educational and minority institutions.
A legal observer said, “The court is asking a basic question — what is the evidence? That is central to any lawful action.”
With the next hearing scheduled for 4 May, attention will now turn to the documents and explanations presented by the state authorities.
For many observers, the outcome will not only affect the institutions involved but also shape the broader debate on rights, accountability and the balance between security concerns and constitutional protections.
