The Allahabad High Court has witnessed a division of opinion between the members of a Division Bench regarding the National Human Rights Commission’s (NHRC) authority to investigate allegations of financial and infrastructural irregularities in 588 Madarsas in Uttar Pradesh. While Justice Atul Sreedharan questioned the NHRC for “dabbling” in matters that prima facie do not involve human rights, Justice Vivek Saran differed, stating that such adverse observations should not have been made without hearing all parties, including the NHRC.
Background
The case arose from a complaint filed before the NHRC alleging that 588 Madarsas in Uttar Pradesh were running in collusion with officers of the Minority Welfare Department. The complainant alleged that these institutions received government grants despite failing to meet basic standards, employing “illiterate” teachers through bribes, and lacking infrastructure like buildings, furniture, and hostels.
Acting on this, the NHRC on February 28, 2025, directed the Director General (D.G.), Economic Offences Wing, Government of U.P., to investigate the allegations and submit an action-taken report. The Teachers Association Madaris Arabia challenged this intervention before the High Court.
Observations by Justice Atul Sreedharan
During the hearing on April 27, 2026, the petitioner sought an adjournment, which the State opposed, citing the high financial stakes and the ongoing NHRC inquiry. Examining the NHRC’s order, Justice Sreedharan expressed astonishment at the Commission’s intervention.
He noted that under Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, “human rights” are specifically defined as rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity. The Court observed:
“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… 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.”
Justice Sreedharan further criticized the NHRC for overlooking actual human rights issues while entertaining administrative matters:
“Instead of taking suo-motu cognizance 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. This Court is not aware of the NHRC taking suo-motu cognizance 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.”
The Judge remarked that the allegations regarding Madarsas fall within the precincts of the High Court under Article 226 and do not involve human rights as defined by law.
Dissenting View by Justice Vivek Saran
In a separate order, Justice Vivek Saran agreed only with the decision to grant the adjournment but recorded a strong disagreement with the observations made by Justice Sreedharan.
Justice Saran pointed out that the observations were dictated when the petitioner’s counsel was not arguing the case and the NHRC was not even represented. He stated:
“I am strictly of the opinion that if any order touching on the merits of the case or even touching on the role of the NHRC had to be passed, then all parties concerned ought to have been heard… In the absence of the parties, no adverse observations were required.”
Justice Saran explicitly noted, “Since, various facts have been mentioned in paragraph nos. 6 and 7, with which I do not agree, I differ from the order as has been dictated by brother Justice Atul Sreedharan.”
Conclusion
Despite the difference in opinion regarding the NHRC’s conduct, the Bench granted the adjournment and issued a formal notice to the NHRC to appear and file its response. The court directed that the case be connected with another related matter and listed for final orders on May 11, 2026. The interim order previously granted in the matter will continue until the next date of hearing.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Teachers Association Madaris Arabia And 2 Others v. National Human Rights Commission And 8 Others
- Case No.: WRIT-C No. 32051 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Vivek Saran
- Date: April 27, 2026
