By Md. Afzalul Haque
Recently, the Teachers Association Madaris Arabia in UP has challenged the order passed by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) which had directed to conduct an inquiry into 558 aided Madrasas across the state. The High Court has stayed the operation of the orders of NHRC.
In this case, acting on complaints before it, the NHRC reportedly passed three separate orders dated 28th February, 23rd April and 11th June 2025. The State Government followed the direction and promptly issued notification, vesting authority in the Director General, Economic Offence Wing, U.P. Lucknow for a comprehensive investigation. May it, in these circumstances, be fair to treat these alleged activities, barely of monetary in nature, as the violation of human rights of the complainant or any person? May it be proceedings before the statutory body having limited exclusive jurisdiction, especially in organic legal system based on legislative process defining jural concepts like right and duties or power and liabilities, etc.? It leads to reread such vibrant kinetic shifts, now undergone in law dealing with the concept of human rights and felt to be commenced to happen now in India. A civilized society with a substantially developed legal system, particularly one functioning under a federal form of governance, naturally encourages learners not to remain passive but to critically examine the role of state organs dealing with human rights issues and to foresee the future direction of the lex loci.
Human rights, as an abstract concept, have evolved magnanimously to provide the wider notions like universal fundamental freedoms or inalienable rights naturally accrued in a civilized society to ensure dignity, equality, and respect for all, regardless of race, gender, religion, or nationality. At larger level, it includes right to life, and liberty, right to work, fair wages, and safe working conditions, right to education, and right to adequate standard of living under Articles 21, 21A, 23 and 24 of the Constitution of India. One may be right in asserting that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations in 1948. Civilized states endeavour to foster due respect to such international treaty and obligation by way of enacting laws and also evolving the design and pattern of their legal systems so the human beings should get their valuable rights based on ethnicity, faith and denomination, etc. preserved and protected. These provisions have also got many dimensions by way of interpretation given by the constitutional courts in India which include freedom from slavery and torture, economic and social rights, and fair trial, etc. However, all such widest constructions and notions of the concept of human rights have not been able to engulf in it the financial transactions taking place. So, these issues were not convoluted and contending issues before the High Court but something different and sui generis i.e. these cases before the court may not be the quintessence of the infringement of human rights, as has been taken up by the NHRC. The High Court or NHRC demonstrated affinity to deal with vital issues of human rights and jurisdiction of NHRC in other issues.
To deal with issues of human rights violation, India has a specific legislation namely The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 [as amended by the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019, No.19 of 2019 w.e.f. 2-8-2019 vide Notification No. S.O. 2756(E) dt. 01-08-2019] which is in force as the base legislation besides aforesaid laws. Chapter III of the Act, 1993 deals with the function of NHRC in India, Section 12 precisely enumerates functions as the violation of the human rights, or its abetment and negligence of the public servants in its prevention. NHRC may also intervene in proceedings before the court in cases of human rights violation and it may even visit jails to look into the situation of human rights violations inside the prisons of the state and finally it can recommend the matters to appropriate governments. Section 13 of the Act empowers NHRC with some usual powers of the civil court for summoning and examining the witness and documents, etc. NHRC may investigate and utilise the service of investigating agency for summoning and attendance of the witness as well as production of the required records for the just and fair disposal of the cases of human rights violations only. The widest power NHRC enjoys prima facie under Section 12(j) which says such other functions as it may consider necessary for the promotion of human rights. So “such other functions” may not connote meaning defying the rule of ejusdem generis and the words shall have restricted meaning, should confine to subsume its notion from the other functions of NHRC immediately preceding to this clause. Obviously, when these actions involve elements related to the violation of human rights, the NHRC may invoke its limited exclusive jurisdiction. However, it may not appropriately entertain cases involving different circumstances that carry penal consequences, such as the implementation of harsher criminal laws, which are likely to adversely affect an individual’s liberty. Therefore, to maintain a world-class sui juris legal system, judicial authorities are expected to function within the domain of their limited exclusive jurisdiction, thereby safeguarding themselves from criticism relating to bias, deterrence, and institutional overreach arising from extraneous considerations. In such cases the verdicts are also having likelihood overgone by the global judicial system with no foreseen notable words.
So far, the financial fraud is concerned, it was said to be judicially discussed in ancient Greece in 300BC when a shipping merchant Hegestratos attempted to defraud the insurers of a shipload of valuable goods by sinking his boat but keeping the cargo and claiming the loss anyway. Further notion and concepts of fraud succinctly established case of Derry v. Peek, a landmark judgment led on 1 July 1889 to the evolution of concepts of fraud and misrepresentation under common law. Lord Herschell determined that a statement would be fraudulent when it was made knowingly, or without believing in its truth, or recklessly, etc. The Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘fraud’ as ‘a knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment’. Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 defines fraud as “any act, omission, concealment of any fact or abuse of position committed by any person or any other person with the connivance in any manner, with intent to deceive, to gain undue advantage from the company or its creditors or any other person without taking notes of wrongful or wrongful loss.” The Indian Penal Code does not explicitly define ‘fraud’; however, section 25 of the IPC suggests fraudulently mean “a person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.” There are several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 like Sec. 405 (criminal breach of trust), Sec. 415 (cheating), Sec. 463 (forgery) and Sec. 477A (falsification of accounts). There is one specific context in England where financial issues and human rights intersect under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, where coercive behaviour may include financial abuse not allowing accessing money or defrauding in relationship, etc. Even evolution of this kind would not convert a seminary into domestic house.
These arrangements, ancient or new, never tell that a transaction or dealing of money may be treated as gross cases of human rights violation. In cases of grave breach of trust and nonadherence of the direction for the appropriation for the public funds, the court of magistrate or investigating agencies may take cognisance for investigating and prosecution, etc. in court under whose jurisdiction alleged offence has taken place. So, the penal statutes may not magnanimously construe with superfluous amplitude to make these cases of financial in nature as violation of human rights in the eyes of law.
[Md. Afzalul Haque is Law Officer, Central Waqf Council]
