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.

Allahabad High Court has given a big relief to the arrested builder Abhay Kumar in the case of death of software engineer Yuvraj Mehta after falling into the pit of Sector-150 in Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The court has ordered the immediate release of the builder from illegal detention. The builder had filed a Habeas Corpus writ petition, which was accepted. Justice Siddharth and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay have given this decision while hearing in the double bench.

Wishtown director Abhay Kumar had filed a petition in the High Court, demanding that the arrest and detention be declared illegal, void and void. In the petition, it was argued on behalf of Abhay Kumar that the police did not follow Clause 13 of the arrest memo and did not inform the petitioner in advance.

Court found flaws in the arrest process

Abhay Kumar’s advocate argued in the court that the police had ignored the rules of arrest. The court also accepted the argument that the procedure was not followed and there were many shortcomings.

After hearing the arguments, the court directed the concerned authority to immediately release petitioner Abhay Kumar. The court directed the Additional Government Advocate (AGA) to immediately inform the concerned authorities to get the order implemented and not to wait for the certified copy.

Yuvraj Mehta died on 16 January

Let us tell you that on the night of 16 January in Sector-150 of Noida, software engineer Yuvraj Mehta died after falling into a pit at the under-construction site. After which there was a demand for action against the Noida Authority as well as the builder, this matter gained a lot of attention. After which the police arrested many other people including the builder.

Allahabad High Court has banned any kind of business fair or event being organized in schools of UP. The court clearly said that now no commercial activity will be carried out in schools. Under no circumstances can the importance of a playground be reduced in relation to an educational institution.

The double bench of Allahabad High Court Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra gave this order while disposing of the petition of Hamirpur petitioner Girja Shankar. This PIL was filed regarding the organization of a business fair in a college in Hamirpur.

Ban on commercial activity in educational institutions

Commenting on the commercial activities taking place in schools and colleges, the court said that educational institutions are meant only for providing education, the land and buildings of such institutions which also have playgrounds cannot be used under any name or for any commercial activity.

Court gave instructions to the state government

While hearing the PIL, the court ordered that the infrastructure of educational institutions should be used only for educational activities and related activities. The court directed the UP government to issue a clear and unambiguous circular in this regard.

In this circular, the district administration, police administration and educational institutions of all levels have been asked to take action as per the instructions given by the court within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

The court has said in strong words that there is no law which allows commercial use of the property of an educational institution imparting primary, secondary or higher education. The infrastructural facilities of educational institutions should be used for sports, cultural activities, debate competitions etc. and not for other purposes.

Driver killed in overtake dispute in Saharanpur, incident took place at some distance from the police post