Two Allahabad High Court judges have made differing remarks while hearing a writ petition challenging an order of the National Human Rights Commission, which directed an inquiry into allegations against 558 aided madrassas in Uttar Pradesh.

Justice Atul Sreedharan strongly criticised the human rights commission (NHRC), expressing surprise that it directed an inquiry into such a matter when it takes no suo motu action in cases where members of the Muslim community are attacked or lynched, and when cases are either not registered against perpetrators or not investigated properly.

The other judge, Justice Vivek Saran, expressed his disagreement with the remarks, saying that the observations were made even as the NHRC was not represented in the court.

The two-judge bench adjourned the case to a later date.

They were hearing a writ petition filed by the Teachers Association Madaris Arabia, challenging an inquiry being conducted by the Economic Offences Wing in Lucknow against the 558 madrassas following the NHRC order.

The NHRC had passed the order after hearing a complaint filed by Mohammad Talha Ansari alleging that 558 madrassas were operating in collusion with officers of the Minority Welfare Department and were receiving government grants without meeting the required standards.

During the hearing, Justice Sreedharan remarked, "Instead of taking suo motu cognisance in which members of the Muslim community are attacked and 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."

"This court is not aware of the NHRC taking suo motu cognisance 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 relationship between persons of different communities, or where even having a cup of coffee at a public place with the person of a different religion becomes a fearful act," he observed.

"Under the circumstances, looking into the nature of this case, specifically the manner in which the NHRC has gone ahead and accepted the complaint in a case where prima facie there was no human right involved, the adjournment sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner is granted. The objection of the state for non-grant of adjournment is rejected," Justice Sreedharan said.

Justice Vivek Saran said he differed from the adverse remarks, observing that the NHRC was not represented before the court, and even the petitioner was not arguing the case but had only sought an adjournment.

"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," Justice Saran said.

"The petitioner was definitely not arguing the case. There was no representation of the National Human Rights Commission. The only party opposing the adjournment during the mention was the state counsel," he said.

Justice Saran observed that while a writ court can pass an order even in the absence of a particular party, in the current case, when definite observations were being made, it would have been fit if the parties were properly represented in the court.

"In the absence of the parties, no adverse observations were required," Justice Saran, adding, "I differ from the order as has been dictated by brother Justice Atul Sreedharan. However, I agree with the adjournment being allowed."

In February 2025, the NHRC passed an order directing the Economic Offences Wing to inquire into allegations against 558 aided madrassas in Uttar Pradesh.

The complaint before the NHRC alleged that the madrassas were operating in collusion with officers of the Minority Welfare Department and were receiving government grants without meeting the required standards.

The complaint also alleged that uneducated teachers were being recruited by taking bribes and commissions offered to state authorities.

The writ petition before the high court contended that the NHRC is not empowered to order an inquiry into alleged human rights violations more than one year after the alleged incident.