A division bench of the Allahabad High Court delivered a split verdict regarding the National Human Rights Commission’s (NHRC) approach to cases involving lynching of Muslims. The bench, comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Vivek Saran, was hearing a petition challenging NHRC directives related to an investigation into government-aided madrasas in Uttar Pradesh. The judges issued separate interim orders, reflecting differing views on the NHRC’s priorities and jurisdiction.According to Scroll, Justice Atul Sreedharan criticised the NHRC for allegedly ignoring incidents of lynching and assaults targeting Muslims, while focusing on matters he considered outside its core mandate. He questioned why the commission had not taken suo motu cognisance of such attacks, instead directing investigations into alleged financial irregularities in madrasas.As reported by Hindustan Times, Justice Sreedharan stated, “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.”As highlighted by The Indian Express, Justice Sreedharan further observed that the NHRC’s powers arise from the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and that the commission should intervene only in cases involving violations as defined by the statute. He noted the absence of evidence that the NHRC or state commissions had taken suo motu cognisance of vigilante attacks or harassment based on inter-community relationships.In his order, Justice Sreedharan remarked, “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 ordinary citizens of this country, or harass individuals on account of the nature of the 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.”Coverage revealed that Justice Vivek Saran disagreed with the critical observations made by Justice Sreedharan. Justice Saran emphasised that adverse remarks about the NHRC’s role should not be made without the commission being represented in court and that all parties should be heard before passing any order affecting the NHRC’s standing.In a separate order, Justice Saran stated that he did not concur with the views expressed in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Justice Sreedharan’s order, highlighting the importance of proper representation and due process. He noted, “In the absence of the parties, no adverse observations were required.”The bench was hearing a petition filed by the Teachers Association Madaris Arabia, which challenged NHRC orders directing the Economic Offences Wing to investigate allegations of financial irregularities in 558 aided madrasas. The petitioners argued that the NHRC lacked authority to initiate inquiries into alleged violations beyond one year and sought adjournment of the matter as details emerged.The case has been adjourned, with the NHRC directed to appear before the court and file a response. The split verdict underscores ongoing debates about the scope and priorities of human rights commissions in India, particularly regarding their response to communal violence and their jurisdiction over other matters.“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,” Justice Sreedharan stated.Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.