It is definitely a matter of utmost concern that none other than Hon’ble Mr Justice Atul Sreedharan who is a senior Allahabad High Court Judge who earlier also has rich experience of working as a Judge of even Madhya Pradesh High Court and so also even in Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Teachers Association Madaris Arabia And 2 Others Vs National Human Rights Commission And 8 Others in Writ – C No. – 32051 of 2025 that was pronounced as recently as on April 27, 2026 has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that the human rights commissions across the country have failed to take suo motu cognizance in matters involving assaults and lynching of Muslims in the country. It must be mentioned here that the Allahabad High Court was hearing a petition that had been moved by Teachers Association Madaris Arabia against certain orders that had been passed by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in relation to the Madrasas in February 2025 directing Economic Offences Wing (EOW) to inquire into allegations against 558 aided Madrasas in the State of UP. It must be apprised here that the Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Atul Sreedharan while questioning NHRC’s power to issue a direction for probe against Madrasas pointed out that human rights commissions were focusing on matters beyond their jurisdiction, particularly those that can be agitated before the High Court under Article 226.
It cannot be glossed over and is definitely a cause of grave concern that the Bench also pointed out further that, “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”. The Bench also further observed that the Court was not aware of the National Human Rights Commission taking suo motu cognizance in situations where vigilantes take the law in their own hands and harass the ordinary citizens of the country. It merits noting that the Bench also particularly underscored the harassment of people over the nature of relationship due to their different communities. It also further added that even having a cup of coffee at a public place with the person of different religion becomes a fearful act sometimes. There can be just no gainsaying that this has to be addressed most effectively root and branch as has been pointed out most commendably by the Bench!
What also cannot go unnoticed is that in a rare instance, we see that the two Judges on a Division Bench in the Allahabad High Court in this leading case have passed separate interim orders after disagreeing with respect to the functioning of human rights commissions in the country. While Hon’ble Mr Justice Atul Sreedharan observed unequivocally that the human rights commissions across the country have failed to take suo motu cognizance in matters involving assaults and lynching of Muslims in the country, Hon’ble Mr Justice Vivek Saran said that he does not agree with such sweeping observations and felt that all should be heard and inabsence of aprties no adverse observations required. It must be mentioned here that Hon’ble Mr Justice Atul Sreedharan is a much senior Judge and has been Judge of High Court since 2016 in three different High Courts and Hon’ble Mr Justice Vivek Saran has been Judge of Allahabad High Court since just September 2025! But Hon’ble Mr Justice Vivek Saran agreed with Hon’ble Mr Justice Atul Sreedharan’s decision to issue notice to NHRC and extend the interim stay on Commission’s order which was initially granted in September 2025!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Atul Sreedharan of Allahabad High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the arguing counsel is not available and, therefore, has sought adjournment. This is strongly being opposed by the learned counsel for the State who submits that this is a matter involving crores of rupees and the direction has been for the NHRC to inquire into the matter and file a report.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that, “In order to ascertain the anxiety of the State that the matter not be adjourned, this Court examined the first of the three orders passed by the NHRC which is dated 28.2.2025. In the order dated 28.2.2025, it is reflected that the complainant before the NHRC has stated that there are 588 Madarsas in collusion and involvement with the officers of the Minority Welfare Department, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh which are running in the State. The complainant further alleged before the NHRC that these Madarsas receive Government grants while not meeting any standards and have illiterate teachers, lack of basic education infrastructure, building, furniture, hostels etc. It is further alleged by the complainant that the uneducated teachers are recruited through bribes and commissions being offered to the authorities in the State and, therefore, the complainant had sought the intervention of the Commission.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 3 that, “His complaint has been transmitted to the D.G, Economic Offences Wing, Govt. of U.P. with a direction by NHRC to get the allegations made in the complaint looked into and to submit an action taken report within four weeks for perusal of the Commission. Thereafter, the order continues by forwarding a copy of the complaint to the D.G, Economic Offences Wing, Govt. of U.P. directing him to take appropriate action in the matter as per the directions of the Commission.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 4 that, “Prima-facie, this Court is astounded by the order passed by the NHRC. The powers of the NHRC and its ambit and scope of application, arise from the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. In the said Act, Human Rights is defined as follows:-
Section 2(1)(d) “human rights” as the rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in international covenants, and enforceable by courts of India.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 5 that, “The Statute makes it very clear that it is only Human Rights violations as defined in the aforementioned Statute in which the Human Rights Commission, whether it be the National Human Rights Commission or the State Human Rights Commission, are empowered to take any cognizance. The National Human Rights Commission and the State Human Rights Commission must realize that they are not tribunal under the law which can try cases. Undoubtedly, if in a particular case where the Human Rights Commission feels that it must intervene in order to protect human rights of the citizens of this Country as defined in Section 2(1)(d), the Human Rights Commissions can themselves becomes complainant before a court of competent jurisdiction by filing a complaint if they so desire, or get an FIR registered as a complainant, where the victim is unable to do so. But prima-facie, this Court has doubt whether such direction can be passed to the officers of the executive to act in a particular manner, in a case where human rights are not involved.”
Most significantly, most commendably and so also most forthrightly, the Bench encapsulates in para 6 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “Besides, in the nature of the case which is mentioned above, this Court finds 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. This Court is not aware of the NHRC taking suo-motu cognizance in situations where vigilantes take the law in their own hands and harass the ordinary citizens of this country or, harass individuals on account of the nature of relationship between persons of different communities or where even having a cup of coffee at a public place with the person of different religion becomes a fearful act. In such cases, no instance has been placed before this Court whether the State Human Rights Commission or the National Human Rights Commission took suo-motu cognizance. But instead it has the time to entertain matters which would fall within the precincts of the High Court under Article 226 and which could be effectively render justice.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench then hastens to add in para 7 noting that, “Under the circumstances, looking into the nature of this case, specifically the manner in which NHRC has gone ahead and accepted the complaint, in a case where prima-facie there was no human right involved. The adjournment sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner is granted. The objections of the State for non-grant of adjournment is rejected.”
It would be also worthwhile to note that the Bench then directs and holds in para 8 that, “Issue notice to the National Human Rights Commission, the respondent no.1 herein, which shall appear before this Court through its counsel and file a response in this case.”
Further, the Bench then directs in para 9 holding that, “Steps be taken within three days.”
Furthermore, the Bench then states in para 10 directing and holding that, “Connect with Writ-C No.15360 of 2026 and list this case on 11.05.2026 along with other cases. On that date this Court shall consider and pass final orders after hearing both parties.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by aptly directing and holding in para 11 that, “The interim order granted earlier shall continue till the next date of hearing.”
In conclusion, there can be just no gainsaying that what Hon’ble Mr Justice Atul Sreedharan who is a senior and eminent High Court Judge with an impeccable track record and a rich and diverse experience of more than 10 years of having worked in three different prominent High Courts in India – that of Madhya Pradesh which is his parent High Court and then in Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh and now in Allahabad High Court also has pointed out explicitly without beating about the bush most straight forwardly that Human Rights Commissions have been ignoring lynching of Muslims which definitely is a very serious observation and has to be taken most seriously and cannot be pushed in the backburner! It gives me most immense satisfaction to see that we have such upright Judges like him who have dared to point out that human rights commissions across the country have failed to take suo motu cognizance in cases involving assaults and alleged lynching of Muslims and in situations where members of the Muslim community are attacked and cases are either not registered or inadequately investigated, there appears to be lack of proactive intervention by these commissions. On the contrary, NHRC and UP Human Rights Commission are dabbling in matters which are outside their jurisdiction like directing an inquiry into the allegations against Madrasas as was pointed out by the Bench. This matter is expected to be taken up further, where a more definitive view can emerge after hearing all the parties concerned including NHRC and UP Human Rights Commission who are yet to be heard! The Allahabad High Court in this leading case granted the adjournment that was sought by the petitioner and rejected the State’s contentions. It is now expected to hear the matter again on May 11 when it will come up for hearing. We have to keep our fingers crossed until then!
Author Bio
