HC stays EOW inquiry against558 aided madrassas in state

Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court has stayed the economic offences wing inquiry against 558 aided madrassas in the state.

The probe was being conducted in pursuance of direction issued by National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to director general, EOW, UP to inquire into the matter on a complaint made by one Mohd Talha Ansari against the said madrassas.

While challenging the direction as well as the inquiry, a petition was filed before high court with request to quash the orders dated Feb 28, 2025, April 23, 2025, and June 11, 2025, passed by NHRC, New Delhi.

The petition further prayed to quash the consequential govt order dated April 23, 2025, whereby pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the NHRC, a roving inquiry was being conducted into all 558 aided madrassas by the EOW.

A division bench comprising Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai while staying the orders on Sept 22 has directed to issue notice to NHRC as well as to the complainant and fixed Nov 17, 2025, as next date of hearing.

It was submitted before the court that under section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the functions of the commission are specifically enumerated. It was further submitted that section 36(2) of the Act clearly provides that the commission shall not inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the alleged act constituting violation of human rights is said to have been committed.

It was further submitted before the court that under section 12-A, the commission may inquire suo motu, or on a petition presented by a victim or any person on his behalf, or on the basis of any direction or order of any court. However, in the present case, none of the conditions stipulated under section 12-A are attracted.

It was further urged that the complaint is silent regarding the date of the alleged act constituting violation of human rights, and since the averments made therein are vague and do not disclose any specific date, it is not possible to ascertain whether the complaint was filed within one year from the date of the alleged violation. Hence, it is submitted that the entire exercise undertaken by commission is without jurisdiction.

The court directed respondents to file their respective replies within four weeks.