Allahabad HC Bench differs over observations against NHRC in UP madrasas inquiry

Prayagraj/New Delhi, April 29 A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has differed over observations made against the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in a case concerning an inquiry into alleged irregularities involving hundreds of madrassas in Uttar Pradesh.

The matter came up before a Division Bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Vivek Saran in a writ petition filed by the Teachers Association, Madaris Arabia and others challenging proceedings arising out of an NHRC complaint.

In his opinion, Justice Atul Sreedharan took prima facie exception to the NHRC entertaining a complaint alleging that 588 madrassas, in collusion with officers of the Minority Welfare Department of the Uttar Pradesh government, were receiving grants despite lacking educational standards, infrastructure and qualified teachers.

The complaint before the NHRC had also alleged that appointments were being secured through bribes and commissions.

Referring to the NHRC’s direction to the Director General, Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Uttar Pradesh, to examine the allegations and submit an action taken report, Justice Sreedharan said the court was “astounded” by the order passed by the apex human rights body.

“The powers of the NHRC and its ambit and scope of application arise from the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993,” the order said, adding that under the statute, human rights relate to “life, liberty, equality, and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in international covenants, and enforceable by courts of India”.

The opinion further said that the NHRC and State Human Rights Commissions “are not tribunals under the law which can try cases” and expressed prima facie doubt whether such directions could be issued to executive authorities “in a case where human rights are not involved”.

Justice Sreedharan further observed that issues of the nature raised in the complaint could otherwise be agitated before the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 through a public interest litigation (PIL).

However, in a separate opinion, Justice Vivek Saran disagreed with the adverse observations touching upon the role of the NHRC.

Justice Saran said the order had been dictated when counsel for the petitioners sought adjournment, while there was no representation on behalf of the NHRC.

“I am strictly of the opinion 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,” Justice Saran said.

The judge added that while a writ court may pass orders even in the absence of a party, “in the instant case, when... 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,” the opinion said.

While concurring with the grant of adjournment, Justice Saran expressly dissented from the factual and legal observations contained in paragraphs six and seven of Justice Sreedharan’s order, including the issuance of notice to the NHRC and to appear through counsel and file a response.

The matter has been directed to be connected with another pending writ petition and listed on May 11. However, following the split opinion, the case is likely to be referred to the Chief Justice, the master of the roster.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor