One Bench, Two Views: Allahabad High Court Judges Divided Over NHRC’s Silence On Mob Lynching

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has delivered a rare split verdict following a dramatic disagreement between two judges over the priorities of the National Human Rights Commission.

While the court was meant to address a petition regarding an investigation into state madrasas, the hearing shifted into a debate over whether the Commission is ignoring mob violence while meddling in administrative school matters.

The legal battle began when the Teachers' Association Madaris Arabia challenged an NHRC order. That order stemmed from a complaint alleging that 588 madrasas were operating in collusion with government officials to siphon off grants despite lacking basic infrastructure like buildings and furniture. The complaint further alleged that uneducated teachers were being hired through a system of bribes, prompting the NHRC to step in, according to a report in Bar and Bench.

Justice Atul Sreedharan issued a scathing critique of the Commission's involvement, labeling it surprising that the NHRC would indulge in matters that typically fall under the High Court's jurisdiction.

He observed that instead of taking self-initiated action in cases where members of the Muslim community are lynched or harassed by vigilantes, the Commission is seen dabbling in issues that do not primarily concern human rights. Justice Sreedharan noted that the court is unaware of the NHRC taking a stand when ordinary citizens are targeted for their inter-community relationships or when simply having coffee in public with someone of a different faith becomes a dangerous act.

He concluded that the NHRC should focus on protecting victims who are unable to file their own police reports rather than entertaining administrative disputes.

However, Justice Vivek Saran formally distanced himself from these remarks in a separate order. He argued that it was fundamentally unfair to pass such harsh judgment on the Commission's role without a representative from the NHRC present in court to defend their actions.

While he agreed to postpone the case, he maintained that a writ court should avoid making adverse observations about a party's conduct until all sides have been properly heard. Justice Saran explicitly stated his disagreement with the critical observations regarding the Commission's perceived silence on vigilantism, citing a need for judicial restraint.

This rare internal disagreement leaves the court's stance on the NHRC's conduct in a state of deadlock. The case is now listed for May 11, and the court has issued a formal notice to the NHRC to appear through legal counsel and file a response to the allegations.

The final outcome will likely determine whether the Commission continues its probe into the madrasas or if the High Court will restrict its mandate to more direct human rights violations.