Prayagraj: Justice Atul Sreedharan of the Allahabad High Court has strongly criticized the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) for its inquiry into 558 aided madrassas in Uttar Pradesh, questioning why the commission takes suo motu action in this case but remains silent on attacks and lynchings of Muslims where FIRs are not filed or investigations are inadequate.
However, Justice Vivek Saran, who was also on the bench, dissented from the criticism. “I am strictly of the opinion that if any order touching on the merits of the case or even touching on the role of the NHRC had to be passed, then all parties concerned ought to have been heard,” Justice Saran said.
The order was passed on April 27 while hearing a petition that challenged both the NHRC’s directive for an inquiry and the probe by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Lucknow, into a complaint filed by one Mohd Talha Ansari against 558 aided madrassas in UP.
Justice Sreedharan observed that the “National Human Rights Commission and Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission are dabbling in matters that prima facie do not concern them.”
“We find it surprising that the human rights commissions in the country are trying to indulge in matters which should otherwise have been agitated before the high court under Article 226 by way of PIL if need be for appropriate orders. Instead of taking suo-motu cognizance in which members of the Muslim community are attacked and at times, lynched in some cases, and where cases are not registered against perpetrators or not investigated properly, the human rights commissions are seen dabbling in matters that prima facie do not concern them,” he said.
“This court is not aware of the NHRC taking suo motu cognizance when vigilantes take the law into their own hands and harass ordinary citizens, or target individuals over interfaith relationships, or when even sharing a cup of coffee with a person of another religion becomes an act of fear. No instance has been placed before this court of the State Human Rights Commission or the NHRC acting suo motu in such cases. Yet it finds time to entertain matters that fall within the High Court’s remit under Article 226 and could be effectively adjudicated there,” Justice Sreedharan added.
In this backdrop, Justice Sreedharan fixed May 11 for the next hearing of the case.
However, Justice Vivek Saran differed from this remark, observing that the NHRC was not represented before the court, and the order was passed even when the petitioner was not arguing the case and had sought an adjournment.
Justice Saran said: “The order was dictated when the petitioner's counsel had asked for an adjournment while making a mention. The petitioner, definitely, was not arguing the case. There was even no representation of the NHRC. The only party opposing the adjournment during the mentioning was the state counsel.”
He also added that while a writ court can pass an order even in the absence of any particular party, in the instant case, when definite observations were being made, it would have been in the fitness of things that parties were properly represented in the case.
However, Justice Saran agreed with the adjournment being allowed.
The court was dealing with a writ petition filed by the Teachers Association Madaris Arabia, which challenged the orders passed by the NHRC in February 2025, directing the EOW to probe the allegations against 558 aided madrassas in the state.
In the complaint before the NHRC, it was alleged that the madrassas were operating in collusion with officers of the minority welfare department and were receiving government grants without meeting the required standards. It was also alleged that uneducated teachers were being recruited through bribes and commissions offered to state authorities.
