New Delhi : A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court delivered separate interim directions in a matter concerning the functioning of human rights bodies, reflecting a clear divergence of views between the two judges hearing the case.
The proceedings arose from a plea filed by the Teachers Association Madaris Arabia, which had challenged certain actions of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in relation to madrasas.
While examining the issue, Justice Atul Sreedharan raised broader concerns about how human rights commissions operate, particularly questioning their priorities and scope of intervention, as seen in his order by Moneycontrol.
In his observations, Justice Sreedharan remarked that such commissions appeared to be stepping into areas beyond their mandate, especially matters that could be addressed by constitutional courts under Article 226. He suggested that attention was being diverted from more pressing issues.
“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,” he stated.
The judge went on to note that no instance had been brought before the court to demonstrate that either the NHRC or state commissions had acted on their own in situations involving vigilante violence.
He highlighted that such incidents, where individuals take the law into their own hands, deserved institutional attention. He added that the court was unaware of the NHRC stepping in suo motu in such cases.
Justice Sreedharan also pointed to social tensions affecting ordinary citizens, referring to situations where interactions across communities could invite harassment. He observed that even routine social behavior could become fraught in such contexts, noting concerns about people being targeted over personal relationships.
In continuation, he said, “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.”
However, these remarks did not find agreement with the other member of the Bench, Justice Vivek Saran, who chose to record a separate opinion. Distancing himself from the broader observations, he made it clear that he could not concur with those parts of the order. “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,” he said in a separate order seen by Moneycontrol.
Justice Saran further underlined the importance of procedural fairness, particularly when making remarks that could have wider implications. He pointed out that before issuing any findings related to the role or functioning of the NHRC, all concerned parties should have been given an opportunity to present their case.
“I am also conscious of the fact that a writ court can pass an order even in the absence of any particular party, however, in the instant case, when in Paragraph Nos. 6 and 7, certain definite observations were being made, then it would have been in the fitness of things that parties were properly represented in the Court. In the absence of the parties, no adverse observations were required,” Justice Saran noted.
The split approach by the Bench highlights a rare instance where differing judicial perspectives emerged at the interim stage itself, particularly on questions relating to institutional accountability and judicial restraint.
