The Allahabad High Court recently made strong observations against the National Human Rights Commission during a hearing related to an NHRC direction for inquiry into alleged irregularities in government-aided madrasas in Uttar Pradesh. Justice Atul Sreedharan expressed concern that the NHRC appeared active in matters such as madrasa probes, while allegedly remaining silent on serious incidents involving assaults and lynching of Muslims. The remarks came during a petition filed by the Teachers Association Madaris Arabia challenging NHRC-related directions.
Justice Sreedharan questioned why human rights bodies were not taking suo motu cognisance in cases where members of the Muslim community were attacked, harassed, or lynched. He also observed that human rights commissions should focus on genuine violations of human rights and should not function like courts or tribunals. The court reportedly stayed the Economic Offences Wing probe into madrasas and issued notice to the NHRC for response.
However, the bench was divided. Justice Vivek Saran did not agree with making broad adverse remarks against the NHRC, especially when the commission’s side was not fully represented during the hearing. This turned the matter into a split judicial view rather than a final ruling against the NHRC. The issue has now raised a larger debate on whether human rights institutions are acting equally and strongly in all cases, especially when victims belong to minority communities. The case highlights the need for fair, timely, and unbiased action by constitutional and statutory bodies in every human rights matter.
Tags:
