Back
"Coffee with the 'Other' is Fearful": Allahabad HC Blasts NHRC for Madrasa Probe While Ignoring Lynchings
In a sharply worded order that exposed a rare judicial rift, an division bench led by Justice Atul Sreedharan rebuked the for venturing into what it deemed a non-human rights matter: probing alleged corruption in Uttar Pradesh madrasas receiving government grants. Justice Vivek Saran, however, distanced himself from the bench's sweeping critique, arguing against adverse remarks in the absence of parties. The court granted an adjournment, issued notice to the NHRC, and extended an interim stay on its orders.
From Complaint to Commission: The Madrasa Grants Controversy
The saga began with a complaint before the NHRC in , alleging that 588 madrasas in Uttar Pradesh, aided by the , flouted all standards. Claimants accused them of employing illiterate teachers via bribes and commissions to officials, while lacking basic infrastructure like buildings, furniture, and hostels—yet still pocketing government funds.
On , the NHRC transmitted the complaint to the Director General of the , UP, directing an inquiry and action-taken report within four weeks. This prompted Writ-C No. 32051 of 2025 by the and two others, challenging the NHRC directives as . An interim stay was granted last September, now continued amid the state's push for expeditious hearing given the "crores of rupees" at stake.
State's Urgency vs. Petitioners' Plea for Time
Petitioners sought adjournment citing unavailability of arguing counsel, a request the state fiercely opposed, emphasizing the financial scale and NHRC's mandate. Justice Sreedharan, authoring the order on (noting the futuristic date amid ongoing proceedings), scrutinized the NHRC's initial order, finding no apparent human rights angle.
"Not a Tribunal": Court Draws the Line on NHRC Powers
Delving into the
, the court spotlighted
, defining human rights as those relating to
"life, liberty, equality, and dignity... guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in international covenants."
"
, this Court is astounded by the order passed by the NHRC... The National Human Rights Commission... must realize that they are not tribunal under the law which can try cases."
Justice Sreedharan stressed NHRC's role is limited to human rights violations; it can file complaints or FIRs but not directly command executive officers sans such basis. He questioned if directions to the EOW were lawful here.
External reports highlighted a bench divide: while Saran concurred on issuing notice and extending stay, he objected to "adverse observations" without hearing parties, noting,
"In the absence of the parties, no adverse observations were required."
Real Human Rights Overlooked? A Pointed Critique
Justice Sreedharan's order vented frustration at NHRC priorities:
"Instead of taking
in which members of the muslim community are attacked and at times lynched... the Human Rights Commissions are seen dabbling in matters that prima facie do not concern them."
He cited ignored scenarios like vigilante harassment, inter-community tensions, or even
"having a cup of coffee at a public place with the person of different religion becomes a fearful act."
No evidence surfaced of NHRC suo motu action in such cases, he noted, suggesting high courts under are better suited for public interest matters like this.
Adjournment Granted, NHRC Summoned: What's Next?
"The adjournment sought... is granted... Issue notice to the National Human Rights Commission... list this case on
... The interim order granted earlier shall continue."
Connected to Writ-C No. 15360 of 2026, the matter awaits full hearing. This ruling underscores boundaries on quasi-judicial bodies, potentially curbing NHRC interventions in administrative or corruption probes disguised as rights issues. Future cases may invoke it to challenge overreach, while spotlighting selective enforcement in human rights advocacy.
Key Observations:
"Human Rights is defined as... rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution..."
"The Human Rights Commissions can themselves becomes complainant before a court... But , this Court has doubt whether such direction can be passed to the officers of the executive..."
"This Court is not aware of the NHRC taking in situations where vigilantes take the law in their own hands..."
The decision reinforces statutory limits, urging rights bodies to stick to core mandates amid pressing societal threats.
