According to the complaint, as many as 556 Hindu minors have been admitted across 27 madrasas in districts including Morena, Islampura, Porsa, Ambah, Jaura, Kailaras and Sabalgarh, where they are reportedly taught the Quran and Hadith—allegedly engaging them in religious instruction inconsistent with their faith. The complainant contends that this may amount to an organised conversion racket.
Kanoongo noted that madrasas are not recognised as formal educational institutions under Indian law and thus should not admit students for religious instruction, particularly from faiths other than Islam. He emphasised that Article 21-A of the Constitution mandates state delivery of education through recognised schools, placing madrasas outside the purview of the Right to Education Act.
The NHRC’s notice is addressed to the Principal Secretary of the School Education Department, Madhya Pradesh, requesting an enquiry and a comprehensive report via email within the specified timeframe. The Commission has also ordered that the report be shared with its registry.
In response to the NHRC’s move, BJP MLA Rameshwar Sharma asserted that madrasas engaged in religious conversion would be shut down. He stated that district collectors have been instructed to act immediately and that those promoting conversions would not escape penalty.
The Madhya Pradesh government in August 2024 had issued an order barring non-Muslim children from admission to madrasas and threatened withdrawal of grants or de-recognition for institutions violating Article 28 of the Constitution. That directive followed persistent complaints that Hindu children were being educated in madrasas without consent. The state’s School Education Minister, in past remarks, claimed 56 madrasas had been closed after investigations into such allegations.
Congress leaders countered that enforcement has lagged. Former law minister PC Sharma criticised the government, asserting that legislation against conversion had been passed, but officials have failed to implement it. He characterised the current controversy as political spectacle rather than substantive action.
Legal experts point out that the Supreme Court’s legacy judgment in Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh differentiated between the right to propagate one’s beliefs and the right to effect conversion. The Court held that forcible or induced conversion is not protected under Article 25.