Allahabad High Court Stays NHRC-Ordered Probe into 558 UP Madrasas, Citing Jurisdictional Concerns and Limitation Bar

LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH – In a significant judicial intervention, the Allahabad High Court has stayed an order by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) that directed a sweeping inquiry by the Economic Offence Wing (EOW) into 558 government-aided madrasas across Uttar Pradesh. The division bench, comprising Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai, found that the petitioners raised serious questions about the NHRC's jurisdiction, primarily revolving around the statutory limitation period prescribed under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

The interim stay, granted on September 22, 2025, effectively halts the EOW's investigation into alleged financial irregularities and human rights violations pending further judicial review. The court has issued notices to the NHRC and the original complainant, scheduling the next hearing for November 17, 2025. This case, titled Teachers Association Madaris Arabia And 2 Others vs. National Human Rights Commission And 8 Others , is set to scrutinize the procedural and jurisdictional boundaries of the NHRC's investigative powers.

---

Background: The NHRC Directives and State Action

The genesis of the dispute lies in a complaint filed by Mohammad Talha Ansari with the NHRC, alleging unspecified human rights violations and financial misconduct in the functioning of aided madrasas. Acting on this complaint, the NHRC issued a series of orders on February 28, April 23, and June 11, 2025, directing the Director-General of the EOW in Uttar Pradesh to conduct a comprehensive probe.

Some reports suggested the allegations included illegal appointments of teachers, use of forged documents, and misuse of grant funds, particularly during the COVID-19 period. Consequent to the NHRC's directives, the Uttar Pradesh state government issued a government order on April 23, authorizing the EOW to commence its investigation into all 558 aided madrasas named in the context of the complaint.

This move prompted the Teachers Association Madaris Arabia and other affected parties to seek judicial remedy, challenging both the NHRC's foundational orders and the state government's consequential directive as being ultra vires and without jurisdiction.

The Core Legal Challenge: NHRC's Jurisdiction and the One-Year Limitation

The petitioners' primary legal argument, which found favour with the High Court at this preliminary stage, centers on Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. This crucial provision imposes a clear statutory time limit on the Commission's power to investigate. It states:

"The Commission or the State Commission shall not inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed."

Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Prashant Shukla argued that the complaint filed by Ansari was fundamentally flawed as it was vague and lacked any specific details, particularly the date and time of the alleged violations. This omission, the petitioners contended, made it impossible to ascertain whether the complaint was filed within the one-year statutory window mandated by Section 36(2).

"The complaint is vague and silent on material particulars," the petitioners argued. "In the absence of a specific date of violation, it cannot be ascertained whether the complaint was filed within the statutory time limit of one year. Therefore, the NHRC’s directions lack jurisdiction."

Beyond the limitation issue, the petitioners also invoked Section 12 and Section 12-A of the Act. They argued that the enumerated functions of the Commission under Section 12 do not authorize such "roving financial inquiries." Furthermore, they submitted that the conditions for initiating an inquiry under Section 12-A—which allows the NHRC to act suo motu , on a petition by a victim, or on a court order—were not met in this instance.

The High Court's Interim Order and Its Implications

After hearing arguments from both the petitioners and the state's Standing Counsel, who maintained that an investigation was necessary, the bench concluded that the matter required deeper consideration. The court's decision to grant a stay underscores the prima facie strength of the jurisdictional challenge.

In its order, the bench explicitly stayed the NHRC's directives and the subsequent government order, stating:

“Until further orders of this Court, the effect and operation of the orders dated 28.2.2025, 23.4.2025 and 11.6.2025 passed by respondent No. 1/National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi in Case/File No. 1398/24/0/2025 shall remain stayed.”

This order provides immediate, albeit temporary, relief to the hundreds of madrasas that were under the EOW's scanner. The respondents, including the NHRC, the state government, and the original complainant, have been directed to file their counter-affidavits within four weeks, with a further four weeks granted to the petitioners for rejoinders.

Broader Context and Legal Analysis

The case arrives amidst a climate of heightened scrutiny of madrasas in Uttar Pradesh. The state government has pursued several initiatives aimed at regulating these institutions, leading to legal battles over issues ranging from the curriculum to the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Education Board Act, 2004. This High Court stay represents a significant pushback against what many in the minority community perceive as targeted administrative overreach.

From a legal perspective, the court's focus on Section 36(2) reinforces a fundamental principle of administrative law: statutory bodies must operate strictly within the confines of their parent legislation. The one-year limitation period is not merely a procedural formality but a substantive jurisdictional check designed to prevent the raking up of stale claims and ensure timely redressal of human rights violations.

Legal experts note that the court's insistence on a clearly defined timeline in the complaint serves as a safeguard against vague and potentially vexatious litigation. If a complaint can trigger a large-scale investigation without specifying a cause of action that falls within the statutory time limit, it could open the door to misuse of the NHRC's significant powers.

The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications. A final ruling in favour of the petitioners would serve as a powerful precedent, delineating the jurisdictional limits of the NHRC and emphasizing the importance of specificity and timeliness in human rights complaints. Conversely, if the court eventually allows the investigation to proceed, it may signal a more expansive interpretation of the NHRC's powers, particularly in cases involving alleged systemic issues in institutions.

For now, the High Court’s interim order serves as a crucial reaffirmation of due process, ensuring that any investigation, especially one with such broad scope, is grounded in clear legal authority and adheres to the procedural safeguards enshrined in law.