The Allahabad High Court, hearing a petition against the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) over its order directing a probe into 558 madrasas and the Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to vest the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) with investigative authority, ripped into the NHRC over its conspicuous silence on attacks, assaults and lynchings targeting Muslims while venturing beyond its statutory remit, and expressed astonishment over its failure to take suo motu cognisance of such violence.
The sharply-worded observations emerged during the hearing of a petition filed by the Teachers Association Madaris Arabia, which challenged the NHRC’s intervention relating to madrasas in Uttar Pradesh and the subsequent state action assigning the EOW to investigate them, a move stayed by the court and subjected to sharp judicial scrutiny by Justice Atul Sreedharan, who questioned both the priorities and constitutional propriety of the human rights body.
In an interim order carrying unusually caustic undertones, the court observed that although the NHRC derives its powers and jurisdiction from the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, it had remained glaringly inactive despite escalating instances of mob vigilantism, communal assaults and lynchings targeting Muslims, where investigations were allegedly diluted or improperly conducted.
Justice Sreedharan remarked that the court was unaware of any substantial instance in which the NHRC had independently intervened when vigilante groups took the law into their own hands and subjected ordinary citizens to intimidation and violence owing to their religious identity.
He lamented that even routine social interactions, including having coffee with a person belonging to another faith, had increasingly become acts shadowed by fear and social hostility.
The judge further observed that instead of addressing grave violations of human rights, the Commission appeared to be “dabbling” in matters that ordinarily fell within the constitutional jurisdiction of the high courts under Article 226, which empowers constitutional courts to issue writs safeguarding legal and fundamental rights against unlawful state action.
However, the division bench did not speak in one voice, as Justice Vivek Saran distanced himself from portions of the observations made by his brother judge and stated that he did not concur with the remarks recorded in paragraphs six and seven of the dictated order.
Justice Saran maintained that before adverse comments touching upon the role or functioning of the NHRC were made, all concerned parties ought to have been adequately represented and heard before the court.
The bench eventually granted the adjournment sought by the petitioner, rejected objections raised by the Uttar Pradesh government and fixed May 11 for the next hearing in the matter.