Split verdict by Allahabad HC after Justice Atul Sreedharan says Human Rights Commissions ignore lynchings of Muslims

In a rare instance, the two judges on a Division Bench in the Allahabad High Court have passed separate interim orders after disagreeing with respect to the functioning of human rights commissions in the country.

While Justice Atul Sreedharan observed 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, Justice Vivek Saran said that he does not agree with such sweeping observations.

The Court was hearing a petition moved by Teachers Association Madaris Arabia against certain orders passed by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in relation to the functioning of madrasas.

Justice Sreedharan, while questioning NHRC's power to issue a direction for probe against madrasas, said that human rights commissions were focusing on matters beyond their jurisdiction, particularly those that can be agitated before the High Court under Article 226.

"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 judge said.

Justice Sreedharan further said that the Court was not aware of the 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.

The judge particularly highlighted the harassment of people over the nature of relationship due to their different communities. It added that even having a cup of coffee at a public place with the person of different religion becomes a fearful act sometimes.

"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," Justice Sreedharan said.

Justice Saran said he did not agree with the observations made by Justice Sreedharan and passed a separate 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," the judge said.

Justice Saran also said 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.

"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," the judge said.

[Read Orders]