National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) member Priyank Kanoongo on 30 April alleged that several madrasas in Uttar Pradesh have made fraudulent teacher appointments, with the NHRC having received complaints about 500 madrasas from the Uttar Pradesh Madarsa Board. Kanoongo also claimed that state-aided madrasas in the state have been enrolling Hindu students, raising questions about the functioning and oversight of these institutions.

Key Allegations Against UP Madrasas

Speaking to news agency IANS, Kanoongo stated that 308 teachers were allegedly appointed in madrasas during the Covid-19 lockdown — individuals he described as unqualified for the role. "We have received complaint that when the entire country was under lockdown during Covid, 308 teachers were appointed in the madrasas, who were not even teachers. This is a clear violation of the rights of those students because fraudulent appointments are being made," he said.

He further alleged that five to six members of the same family are serving as teachers in individual madrasas. In a particularly striking claim, Kanoongo said he possessed data showing that a person listed as the manager of 11 madrasas is simultaneously appointed as a teacher in a 12th madrasa. "This is fraud," he added.

Hindu Students in State-Aided Madrasas

Kanoongo also flagged what he described as an "ironical" situation — the reported enrolment of Hindu students in state-aided madrasas in Uttar Pradesh, stating the NHRC had been receiving such inputs for several days. However, he was careful to frame the issue in rights-based rather than communal terms. "Rights are equal for both the Hindus and Muslims in the country. We will keep fighting for the rights of people," he said.

Allahabad High Court Proceedings

Kanoongo's remarks came against the backdrop of a significant legal development at the Allahabad High Court, where two judges expressed differing opinions while hearing a writ petition challenging an earlier NHRC order. The NHRC had directed an inquiry into alleged financial mismanagement and infrastructure deficiencies across hundreds of madrasas in Uttar Pradesh.

During the hearing, Justice Sreedharan reportedly expressed a prima facie opinion that the NHRC may have exceeded its jurisdiction by involving the Economic Offences Wing in matters that, in his view, did not directly concern human rights violations. The judge reportedly also commented on what he described as the commission's inaction regarding incidents of lynching and vigilante violence against the Muslim community — a charge that adds a contentious dimension to the ongoing legal dispute.

NHRC's Stated Position

Kanoongo explained that the NHRC's standard approach is to seek reports from concerned government agencies on the basis of complaints received. He maintained that the complaints about madrasas are directly related to children's right to education — a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. This comes amid a broader national debate over the regulation, funding, and transparency of madrasa education, particularly in states where these institutions receive government aid.

The divergence of judicial opinion at the Allahabad High Court means the matter may be referred to a larger bench, with the outcome potentially setting a precedent for how the NHRC can exercise its powers in education-related human rights cases.