Back
Split Verdict in Allahabad HC: Does NHRC Overreach on Madrasas While Ignoring Lynchings?
In a striking courtroom exchange, an division bench delivered a split opinion on the 's (NHRC) role in probing alleged irregularities at Uttar Pradesh madrasas. While Justice Atul Sreedharan sharply criticized the NHRC for venturing beyond its human rights mandate, Justice Vivek Saran cautioned against sweeping remarks made without full hearings. The bench—comprising Justices Sreedharan and Saran—granted an adjournment sought by petitioners challenging NHRC orders, issued notice to the NHRC, and extended an amid a high-stakes dispute involving government grants to 588 madrasas
From Complaint to Controversy: The Madrasa Probe Unravels
The saga began with a , NHRC order acting on a complaint alleging collusion between 588 madrasas and officers. The complainant claimed these institutions received state grants despite failing standards—featuring illiterate teachers hired via bribes, inadequate infrastructure, and missing basics like buildings, furniture, and hostels. NHRC forwarded the matter to the Director General of the , UP, directing an inquiry and action-taken report within four weeks.
and two others filed Writ-C No. 32051 of 2025, challenging these directions. On (noted as 2025 in parts of the order), petitioner's counsel sought adjournment due to the arguing lawyer's absence. The State opposed, stressing the case's financial stakes in crores and urgency of the NHRC-mandated probe. The bench examined the NHRC order, leading to deeper jurisdictional scrutiny.
State's Pushback Meets Judicial Skepticism
The State-respondents, represented by counsel including the Chief Standing Counsel, urged no delay, highlighting NHRC's directive for EOW investigation into serious graft allegations. They portrayed the matter as one of public funds misuse, unfit for postponement.
Petitioners, through advocates like , , and , simply sought time. The bench noted the absence but delved into substance, questioning if NHRC's intervention fit its statutory limits under the .
"Not a Tribunal": Unpacking NHRC's Limits and Blind Spots
Justice Sreedharan, authoring the order, zeroed in on , defining human rights as those tied to life, liberty, equality, dignity—guaranteed constitutionally or via international covenants, enforceable by courts. He declared NHRC "astounded" by its directive, asserting commissions aren't tribunals for general probes.
"The
and the
must realize that they are not tribunal under the law which can try cases."
He doubted NHRC's power to order executive action absent human rights violations, suggesting it approach courts via complaints or FIRs instead. Sreedharan expressed surprise at NHRC prioritizing this over suo motu action on Muslim lynchings, vigilante attacks, or interfaith harassment—issues untouched by commissions despite public outcry.
"Instead of taking
in which members of the muslim community are attacked and at times lynched in some cases... the Human Rights Commissions are seen dabbling in matters that
do not concern them. This Court is not aware of the NHRC taking
in situations where vigilantes take the law in their own hands... or where even having a cup of coffee at a public place with the person of different religion becomes a fearful act."
No precedents were cited, but the ruling hinges on statutory interpretation of NHRC powers versus High Court under .
Justice Saran, per reports, disagreed with these "sweeping observations," noting NHRC's absence and lack of arguments warranted no adverse comments. He stressed hearings before critiquing institutions, yet concurred on procedural relief.
Echoes from Key Observations
-
"Prima-facie, this Court is astounded by the order passed by the NHRC."
-
"Human Rights Commissions... must realize that they are not tribunal under the law which can try cases."
-
"Undoubtedly, if... the Human Rights Commission feels that it must intervene... they can themselves becomes complainant before a court of competent jurisdiction... But prima-facie, this Court has doubt whether such direction can be passed to the officers of the executive..."
-
"The adjournment sought... is granted. The objections of the State... is rejected."
Adjournment Granted, NHRC on Notice: What's Next?
The bench rejected the State's plea, allowed adjournment, issued notice to NHRC for response, and scheduled final hearing for , linked to Writ-C No. 15360 of 2026. The prior interim order continues.
This procedural win signals deeper scrutiny of NHRC's boundaries, potentially curbing quasi-judicial overreach into administrative probes. For madrasa operators and UP's minority welfare, it pauses EOW scrutiny; broader, it spotlights commissions' selective focus, urging recalibration toward core human rights crises like communal violence.
As reports note, Saran's dissent tempers Sreedharan's critique, but the order underscores: human rights bodies must stick to statute, leaving policy matters to writ courts.
