A judge of the Allahabad High Court has alleged that the National Human Rights Commission was ignoring the lynching of Muslims in the country and instead “dabbling in matters that prima facie do not concern them”, reported Live Law on Wednesday.
Hearing a petition filed by the Teachers Association Madaris Arabia against a directive issued in February 2025, Justice Atul Sreedharan said on Monday it was “surprising” that rights commissions in the country are trying to indulge in matters beyond their jurisdiction, according to The Indian Express.
However, Justice Vivek Saran, who was part of the same division bench, said that he did not agree with such sweeping observations.
In February 2025, the rights body directed the Economic Offences Wing to investigate allegations against 558 aided madrasas in Uttar Pradesh, The Hindu reported.
This stemmed from a complaint filed before the NHRC alleging financial irregularities, including the misuse of government grants and the appointment of unqualified teachers through corrupt practices to madrasas.
Challenging this, petitioners told the High Court that the human rights body lacked the authority to initiate inquiries into alleged violations beyond one year, the newspaper reported. They had sought an adjournment of the matter.
In his order on Monday, Sreedharan said that he is prima facie astounded by the order passed by the NHRC on the investigation into the madrasas, The Indian Express.
He added that the court was not aware of the rights body taking suo motu cognisance in situations where vigilantes take the law into their own hands and harass ordinary citizens of the country, Bar and Bench reported.
This included when such groups “harass individuals on account of the nature of the relationship between persons of different communities, or where even having a cup of coffee at a public place with the person of different religion becomes a fearful act”.
In such cases, no instance has been placed before the court about whether a state human rights commission or the NHRC had taken suo motu cognisance, said the judge.
“But instead it has the time to entertain matters which would fall within the precincts of the High Court under Article 226 and which could be effectively render justice,” the judge said.
Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Listing the case for May 11, Sreedharan directed that a notice be issued to the NHRC to appear before the court and file a response in the matter.
In a separate order, Saran said that he did not agree with the observations made by Sreedharan.
The judge said that all parties should be heard if any order touching on the merits of the case or about the role of the NHRC had to be passed, Bar and Bench reported.
He added that he was conscious of the fact that a court can pass an order in the absence of any particular party.
“…however, in the instant case, when in Paragraph Nos. 6 and 7, certain definite observations were being made, then it would have been in the fitness of things that parties were properly represented in the Court,” Bar and Bench quoted Saran as saying. “In the absence of the parties, no adverse observations were required.”
Just 0.2% of readers pay for news. The others don’t care if it dies. You can help make a difference. Support independent journalism – join Scroll now.
We’re not driven by clicks or corporate interests – just honest, independent reporting. Keep us going. Support Scroll today!