Petitioner may raise all jurisdictional and factual objections before the NHRC.

The petitioner-school sought a writ of prohibition to call for and quash proceedings in Case No. 312/36/2/2025 pending before the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), contending that the NHRC lacked jurisdiction and that its order dated 11 August 2026 had been passed without notice to the school.

The petitioner apprehended that, pursuant to the NHRC’s directions, the authorities would close the school and shift its students to other recognised schools.

The State informed the High Court that a three-member inspection committee had found that the school lacked a GHMC no-objection certificate, was functioning without provisional recognition for Classes pre-primary to VII in English medium, and shared a common entrance and exit with a wellness centre operating on the first floor.

A show-cause notice for withdrawal of permission/recognition was issued under Rule 11 of G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 1 January 1994. The petitioner replied on 22 May 2026, seeking permission to continue during the 2026–27 academic year and undertaking to comply with the requirements and shift to approved premises if required.

The department had not yet decided the reply. These material facts and the show-cause proceedings had not been disclosed in the writ petition.

Whether the NHRC had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against the petitioner-school under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and the NHRC (Procedure) Amendment Regulations, 1997.

Whether the NHRC’s order dated 11 August 2026 was liable to be quashed on the grounds that it was passed without notice and without jurisdiction.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to raise its jurisdictional and factual objections before the NHRC, particularly after volunteering to appear before it.

The Court referred to the petitioner’s reliance on the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and the NHRC (Procedure) Amendment Regulations, 1997 in challenging the maintainability and jurisdiction of the NHRC proceedings.

It also noted Rule 11 of G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 1 January 1994 as the statutory/administrative basis for issuing a show-cause notice for withdrawal of the school’s permission or recognition.

The Court applied the procedural principle that where the authority has not finally determined the relevant departmental proceedings and the affected party is willing to participate before the forum seized of the matter, the party may raise all available legal and factual objections before that forum; the High Court did not itself determine the NHRC’s jurisdiction on the merits.

The Court took note of the petitioner’s apprehension regarding closure but also considered the State’s inspection findings and the pending departmental action concerning the school’s recognition and compliance deficiencies.

The Court further found that the petitioner had omitted the show-cause notice and its reply from the writ petition.

Since the department had not yet decided the petitioner’s reply and the petitioner had been advised and had volunteered to appear before the NHRC and contest the matter, the Court declined to adjudicate the disputed questions concerning jurisdiction, maintainability, notice, and the factual allegations in the writ proceedings.

Instead, it preserved the petitioner’s right to raise all such objections before the NHRC in accordance with law.

It disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to raise all grounds of law, including jurisdiction, and all factual objections before the NHRC in accordance with law.

No order as to costs was made, and all pending miscellaneous applications were closed.