NHRC directed to issue notice to both complainant and petitioners; Legal experts say the case raises important questions about the balance between oversight of minority institutions and the protection of their rights
NEW DELHI/LUCKNOW — In a significant development protecting the rights of Indian Muslim educational institutions, the Allahabad High Court has stayed the ongoing investigation by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) into 558 aided madrasas across Uttar Pradesh. The order follows the directions of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), highlighting concerns over procedural and jurisdictional lapses.
A division bench comprising Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Amitabh Kumar Roy stayed the investigation on Monday and directed the NHRC to issue notices to both the complainant, Muhammad Talha Ansari, and the petitioners, before adjourning further proceedings until November 17.
The investigation had been initiated by the EOW after the NHRC directed the Director General of the specialised wing to probe alleged irregularities in the functioning of several madrasas, including Madrasa Arabia in Varanasi. The NHRC’s directions were based on complaints alleging financial misconduct.
However, madrasa authorities immediately challenged the orders in court, arguing that the NHRC had overstepped its legal mandate. The petitioners sought to quash the NHRC orders dated February 28, April 23, and June 11, as well as the subsequent government directive of April 23, which instructed the EOW to conduct a comprehensive investigation into 558 aided madrasas.
“The functions of the Commission are clearly defined under Section 12 of the Human Rights Protection Act, 1993. Any proceedings outside this framework are ultra vires,” the petitioners argued. They also cited Section 36(2) of the Act, which states that the Commission cannot investigate matters more than one year after the alleged violation of human rights occurred.
Further, the petitioners highlighted Section 12A, under which the NHRC may only conduct inquiries under specific conditions: on its own initiative, on application by an aggrieved person, or by court direction. “None of these conditions apply here,” the petition contends. It also noted that the complaint does not specify the date of any alleged violation, rendering the investigation outside the NHRC’s jurisdiction.
The EOW, a specialised wing of police authorities in the country, investigates financial crimes including fraud, embezzlement, bribery, forgery, and corruption. Its mandate is to protect individuals and institutions, ensure compliance with financial laws, and recover misappropriated assets.
Many Muslim community leaders and madrasa representatives have welcomed the high court’s intervention, seeing it as a crucial safeguard against arbitrary targeting of educational institutions serving minority communities. “These madrasas have been providing education and guidance to generations. We are relieved that the court has recognised the need to protect their rights and due process,” said Abdul Rashid, a senior madrasa trustee.
Another teacher from Madrasa Arabia in Varanasi, speaking on condition of anonymity, added, “We have always followed legal and financial norms. The allegations are vague, and it is reassuring that the judiciary has temporarily stayed this investigation until proper procedures are followed.”
Legal experts note that the case raises important questions about the balance between oversight of minority institutions and the protection of their rights under Indian law. Advocate Priya Sharma observed, “The court’s stay signals judicial caution. While financial oversight is important, investigations must respect the legal boundaries and safeguards enshrined for all institutions.”
The NHRC is expected to respond to the notices issued by the court before the next hearing. Until then, the investigation remains on hold, offering temporary relief to hundreds of madrasas across Uttar Pradesh and their communities.
This case underscores the delicate position of Indian Muslim educational institutions, which continue to face scrutiny while striving to serve their communities. The judiciary’s intervention has been widely seen as a reaffirmation of legal protections and an effort to prevent potential misuse of investigative powers.
