NHRC Must Uphold Constitutional Mandate and Act with Consistency and Accountability

The recent proceedings before the Allahabad High Court regarding the intervention of the National Human Rights Commission in government aided madrasas in Uttar Pradesh raise critical questions about institutional mandate, legal limits, and the principles of justice in a democratic society. The court’s observations on the scope of the Commission under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 underscore the need for statutory bodies to function within clearly defined boundaries. Directing the Economic Offences Wing to investigate alleged financial and administrative irregularities, without establishing a clear human rights dimension, raises concerns about jurisdictional overreach and blurs the distinction between human rights oversight and criminal or administrative processes.

Equally important, concerns regarding the selective engagement of human rights bodies cannot be ignored. Repeated instances of mob violence, lynching, and targeted attacks against vulnerable communities have posed serious challenges to the constitutional guarantee of life and liberty, yet responses have often appeared delayed or inadequate. When institutions mandated to protect fundamental rights appear inconsistent in addressing grave violations while actively engaging in matters of administrative scrutiny, it raises legitimate questions about priorities and impartiality. The differing views within the bench further highlight the sensitivity of the issue and the need for careful judicial consideration based on full hearings.

The Social Democratic Party of India emphasizes that madrasas have long contributed to educational access in underserved regions. As the matter proceeds, all institutions must remain guided by constitutional values, legal limits, and a firm commitment to justice, ensuring that human rights mechanisms stay focused on protecting dignity, equality, and freedom for all.