By Admin 
The Allahabad High Court has not only made a sharp comment on the orders of investigation of madrassas by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), but has also put an interim stay on the investigation being conducted by the Economic Offenses Wing (EOW) of 588 aided madrassas of Uttar Pradesh. The court has also summoned a reply from the Human Rights Commission in this matter.
During the hearing, the Division Bench of the High Court has raised serious questions on the functioning and priorities of the Human Rights Commission as well as its jurisdiction. Making a scathing comment in its written order, the court said that when incidents like mob lynching happen with people of the Muslim community, the Commission often remains silent, whereas now it is going beyond its scope and ordering investigation of madrassas.
Harsh comment on Human Rights Commission
This order has been given by the Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Vivek Saran while hearing the petition of Madrasa Teachers Association. However, both the judges of the division bench hearing this case have passed separate orders.
Justice Atul Sreedharan has commented on NHRC in his separate order, Justice Vivek Saran has issued a separate order saying that he does not agree with the comments made by Justice Sreedharan in para 6 and 7 and is recusing himself from it. It is believed that due to differences in the hearing bench, the matter may be referred to a larger bench.
How much will be the toll on Ganga Expressway, how much money will have to be spent for the journey? Know everything in one click
Know what is the whole matter?
Actually, this matter is related to the order in which, on the basis of complaint in the month of February, the Human Rights Commission had given instructions to EOW to investigate the alleged irregularities in 588 madrassas of Uttar Pradesh. After this, the state government implemented this order and started the investigation process.
During the hearing, the petitioners argued that the Human Rights Commission has no statutory authority to order such a financial or criminal investigation. The High Court agreed on this and said that prima facie this order of the Commission is not in accordance with the law and it appears to be beyond its jurisdiction. It has been accepted in the court that the issue of madrassas does not fall within the scope of human rights.
The court said the commission’s order was wrong
The court has made it clear that the scope of the Human Rights Commission is limited only to matters related to life, liberty, equality and dignity under the ‘Human Rights Protection Act, 1993’. In such a situation, it cannot be justified to order an investigation into any institution without direct human rights violation.
Akhilesh Yadav showed the way to BJP leaders! Apart from Brajesh and Keshav, Aparna is also included in the list.
The court also said that such cases could have been brought directly to the High Court through Public Interest Litigation (PIL), where appropriate orders would have been passed after judicial trial. Instead, giving direct investigation instructions to the executive by the Commission is contrary to the judicial system.
Considering the matter as serious, the High Court has stopped the investigation for the time being and has issued a notice to the Human Rights Commission and directed it to file its reply.
The next hearing of this case has been scheduled for May 11. It is believed that the decision of this case can prove to be an important example in the future regarding the powers of the Human Rights Commission and the limits of administrative interference on educational institutions.