loader image

Allahabad HC Refuses to Stall ATS Probe Into Madrassas; Says Inquiry Is Not a Coercive Action

Allahabad HC Refuses to Stall ATS Probe Into Madrassas; Says Inquiry Is Not a Coercive Action

Committee of Management and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others, Writ - C No. 6347 of 2026 [Order dated July 01, 2026]

Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has declined to interfere with an inquiry initiated by the Uttar Pradesh Government through the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS), holding that the mere conduct of an inquiry does not amount to a coercive action warranting judicial intervention.

A Division Bench of Justices Neeraj Tiwari and Vivek Saran dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash the State Government’s order dated December 9, 2025, which directed an ATS inquiry against them.

The petitioners argued that two earlier inquiries had already been conducted on substantially the same allegations and had found nothing adverse against them. They contended that the fresh ATS inquiry was initiated solely to harass them and was therefore liable to be set aside.

Opposing the plea, Additional Advocate General Manish Goel submitted that the inquiry was not confined to the petitioners but formed part of a broader exercise covering nearly 4,000 institutions across Uttar Pradesh based on intelligence inputs received from various sources. He further argued that the inquiry was not a coercive measure.

Accepting the State’s submissions, the Bench observed that the initiation of an inquiry by itself could not be treated as a coercive action against the petitioners. Since no adverse action had yet been taken, the Court found no reason to exercise its writ jurisdiction at this stage and dismissed the petition.

However, the High Court granted liberty to the petitioners to file their reply before the inquiry committee and directed that any such response be duly considered.

Appearances

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mohammad Ali Ausaf

Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. (Chief Standing Counsel)

PDF Icon

Committee of Management and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Preview PDF