Also Read - MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Three Accused of Providing Equipment for Advertising Religious Conversion

The Court’s order noted that the investigation had been triggered following intelligence reports alleging the receipt of foreign funding by the madrasas. The inputs highlighted the establishment of expansive institutions in multiple locations where the sources of finance remained obscure and undocumented. The bench did not delve into the merits of the allegations but confined its decision to the procedural question of whether an interim stay was warranted.

In a related pronouncement delivered earlier in January 2026, the same High Court had held that no statutory provision empowers the District Minority Welfare Officer to order the closure of an unrecognised madrasa in Uttar Pradesh. That precedent was referenced by the petitioners during the hearing, although the bench did not rely on it for the present determination.

Also Read - MP High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Alleged Journalist in Extortion Case

Senior Counsel VK Singh, assisted by Advocate Mohd. Ali Ausaf, appeared on behalf of the petitioners. The case is cited as Committee Of Management And Another vs State of UP and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 348.

The dismissal of the petition allows the ATS probe to continue unimpeded. The bench’s observation that the inquiry is not coercive preserves the petitioners’ opportunity to present their case before the Inquiry Committee, thereby maintaining a balance between investigative authority and the right to be heard. The decision underscores the Court’s reluctance to intervene in preliminary investigative steps unless a clear demonstration of coercive or mala fide intent is established.

Also Read - Department Of Education Cannot Impose Recruitment Restrictions On Aided Minority Schools: Delhi High Court