A division bench of the Allahabad High Court issued separate interim orders after a row over the investigation conducted by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) into 558 government-aided schools in Uttar Pradesh.
The bench was hearing a writ petition filed by teachers’ association ‘Arab Schools’ challenging the investigation conducted by the Economic Offenses Wing (EOW) in Lucknow after the intervention of the National Human Rights Commission.
Justice Atul Sreedharan criticized the National Human Rights Commission, observing that the commission had failed to take suo motu cognizance of matters relating to attacks and extrajudicial killings targeting the Muslim community and had issued notices seeking response in the matter. However, Justice Vivek Saran disagreed with these observations, holding that it was inappropriate to make adverse observations against the NHRC without representing the body in court.
The two-judge bench postponed the case to a later date.
The National Human Rights Commission had issued this order after hearing a complaint filed by Muhammad Talha Ansari alleging that 558 schools were working in collusion with officers of the Minority Welfare Department and receiving government grants without meeting the required standards.
Based on the complaint, the National Human Rights Commission issued orders on February 28, April 23 and June 11, prompting the state government to issue a subsequent order of inquiry on April 23 last year.
On September 22 last year, the Supreme Court stayed the investigation conducted by EOW against 558 government-aided schools and sought a response from the state government.
Justice Sreedharan questioned the authority of the National Human Rights Commission to order an inquiry against madrassas, saying: “Instead of taking suo motu cognizance when members of the Muslim community are attacked and sometimes lynched in some cases, and where cases against the perpetrators are not registered or are not properly investigated, the Human Rights Commissions are seen to be dabbling in matters that do not prima facie concern them.”
The two judges issued the orders dated April 27 separately.
Stressing on the harassment faced by people belonging to different communities due to the nature of their relationships, Justice Sreedharan said that even having a cup of coffee in a public place with a person of a different religion becomes a scary act sometimes.
“In such cases, no case has come before this court whether the State Human Rights Commission or the National Human Rights Commission takes suo motu cognizance. But instead, it has time to consider matters which would fall within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 226 and which could effectively dispense justice,” Justice Sreedharan said.
But Justice Saran said: “Since various facts have been stated in paragraphs 6 and 7, with which I do not agree, I differ from the order dictated by Brother Justice Atul Sreedharan.”
He added that if any matter related to the merits of the case or even related to the role of the National Human Rights Commission has to be passed, all concerned parties must be heard.
“I am also aware of the fact that a judicial court can pass an order even in the absence of any particular party. However, in this case, when certain observations specified in paragraphs 6 and 7 were made, it was appropriate that the parties were properly represented in court. In the absence of the parties, there was no need for adverse observations,” Justice Saran said.
