Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has stayed a probe against 558 aided madrassas in Uttar Pradesh by the Economic Offences Wing.
The probe of alleged violation of human rights was being conducted by the Economic Offences Wing in pursuance of a direction issued by the National Human Rights Commission based on a complaint made by a man named Mohammad Talha Ansari against these madrassas.
Challenging the direction as well as the inquiry, a petition was filed before the high court seeking to quash the orders of the NHRC dated February 28, April 23, and June 11.
The petition further prayed for quashing a consequential government order of April 23 for the inquiry.
On Monday, a bench of justices Saral Srivastava and Amitabh Kumar Rai while staying the orders issued notice to the NHRC as well as to the complainant, fixed November 17 as the 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 also 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 is attracted.
The petition 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 the commission is without jurisdiction.
The court directed respondents to file their respective replies within four weeks.
(Except for the headline, this article has not been edited by FPJ's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)
