New Delhi, May : The National Human Rights Commission’s (NHRC) notice to the Haryana Police over the arrest of Ashoka University professor Dr. Ali Khan Mahmudabad has raised eyebrows, amid questions of procedural propriety.
The debate on this was triggered after NHRC member Priyank Kanoongo told IANS that he had not issued the notice.
He cited Section 36 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, which bars the NHRC from inquiring into any matter already under consideration by a state commission or another competent authority.
This provision has raised doubts about whether the Commission had the legal grounds to intervene in the case at all.
Significantly, one of the FIRs against Mahmudabad — filed at Rai Police Station in Sonipat, Haryana — is based on a complaint by Renu Bhatia,
Chairperson of the Haryana State Women Commission, which has already taken cognisance of the matter.
This overlap suggests that the case may fall under the jurisdiction of the state body, potentially disqualifying it from being examined by the NHRC at this stage.
Adding to this debate, the NHRC’s own procedural norms — specifically under the section titled “Complaints Not Ordinarily Entertainable” — state that the Commission may dismiss cases if they are sub judice or under review by any other statutory commission. Considering this, the notice is being seen as an apparent contradiction between internal protocol and public action, say sources.
Earlier, the NHRC issued a statement Wednesday saying it had taken suo motu cognisance of a media report regarding the professor’s arrest.
It claimed that the allegations, on the face of it, indicate a violation of Mahmudabad’s human rights and liberty, and sought a detailed report from the Haryana Director General of Police within a week.
Mahmudabad, who heads the political science department at Ashoka University, was arrested Sunday under serious charges, including those related to endangering the country’s sovereignty, allegedly over social media posts linked to “Operation Sindoor”.
IANS
