Human Right never intersects with financial transactions: understanding law in view of the proceedings of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in 558 Madarasas in U.P.
Recently, the Teachers Association Madaris Arabia in UP has challenged the order passed by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) which 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 has reportedly passed three separate orders dated 28th February, 23rd April and 11th June 2025. 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 the 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 the human right and felt to be commenced to happen now in India. A civilized society, with substantially developed legal system, is otherwise working in the federal form of governance ordinarily, obviously enthuse the learner not to be on the back foot but to go over solemnly the function of organ of states dealing with the human right issues and foresee consequent future directions of lex loci.
Human rights as abstract concept have evolved magnanimously to provide the wider notions like universal fundamental freedoms or inalienable rights naturally accrued in 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 article 21, 21A, 23 and 24 of the Constitution of India.
One may be right in asserting that the Universal Declaration of Human Right was adopted by the United Nations in 1948. Civilized states endeavor 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 right 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 right, and fair trial etc. However, all such widest constructions and notions of the concept of human right have not been able to engulf in it the financial transactions taking place.
So these issues were not convoluted and contending issues before the Hon’ble 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 right, as has been taken up by the NHRC. The High Court or NHRC demonstrated affinity to deal with vital issues of human right and jurisdiction of NHRC in another issues.
For dealing with issues of human right violation India has a specific legislation 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 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 right, 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 right violation and it may even visit to jail to look into the situation of human right violations inside the prison of 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 utilize 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 the human right 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 the 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 it notion from the other functions of NHRC immediately preceding to the this clause.
Obviously when these actions have attributes related to the violation of the human right NHRC may invoke its exclusive limited jurisdiction and it may not comfortably go for indulgence of the cases where are different situation attached with penal consequences like implementing harsher criminal laws which have all likely hood of adverse effect on the liberty of a person.
Therefore to maintain a world class sui juris legal system judicial authorities are presupposed to function in the their domain of the limited exclusive jurisdiction, and consequently rescuing itself from criticism of bias, deterrence and over reach due to extraneous consideration. In such case the verdicts are also having likelihood over gone 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 300 BC 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 land mark judgment led on 1 July 1889 to the evolution of concepts of fraud and misrepresentation under common law.
Lord Herschell determined, a statement would be fraudulent when it was made knowingly, or without believing in it true, 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 behavior 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 be ancient or new never tell that a transaction or dealing of money may be treated as gross cases of human right violations. In cases of grave breach of trust and non adherence of the direction for the appropriation for the public funds the court of magistrate or investigating agencies may take cognizance 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 the human right in the the eyes of law.
writer is a senior Law Officer at Central Waqf Council, Ministry of Minority Affairs Government of India
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article or video are the author’s personal views. Times of Pedia is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, practicality, or truth of any information provided in this article. All information in this article is presented as is. Any information, facts, or views expressed in this article are not those of Times of Pedia, and Times of Pedia is not responsible for them in any way. (TOP Legal Cell)
 .....){kind=link}