Justice Sreedharan’s Rebuke and the Commission’s Credibility Crisis: Has the NHRC Lost Its Way?

JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN’S recent observations castigating the National Human Rights Commission (‘NHRC’) for failing to take suo-motu cognisance of the lynching incidents against the members of the Muslim community have become somewhat of a cause celebre.  A differing opinion – a rarity in High Court orders – by Justice Vivek Saran, specifically disagreeing with Justice Sreedharan, has drawn further interest. 

These observations were made in a case in which an NHRC order, which directed an investigation into the operations of 588 Madarasas, has been challenged before the Allahabad High Court. While comments have been criticised as injudicious, they do call out a pattern of ignorance of politically charged issues followed by the NHRC, a pattern undoubtedly influenced by the structural faultlines in the NHRC’s composition.  

Background

In February 2025, a complaint was filed with the NHRC about the collusion of 588 Madarsas and officers of the Minority Welfare Department, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh. The complaint alleged that these Madarsas received substantial financial aid from the government, yet fell short of meeting the prescribed standards for educational institutions. This was gravely affecting the education of the students in these Madarsas, and therefore, the complainant had approached the Commission.  

In response, the NHRC, in its order dated February 28, 2025 (Case/File No. 1398/24/0/2025), had conveyed the complaint to the Directorate General (‘DG’), Economic Offences Wing, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. It further directed the DG to look into the matter and to submit an Action Taken Report before the Commission within four weeks.

This order was challenged before the Court and was stayed by a bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai in an order dated September 22, 2025. Since then, the matter has continued to be heard and has traversed across four different benches, with the September 22 order persisting unaltered. 

‘This Court is astounded by the order passed by the NHRC’: Justice Sreedharan

On April 27, a bench of Justices Sreedharan and Saran was hearing the matter. The petitioners pleaded for an adjournment since the arguing counsel was unavailable. This was objected to by the State counsel, who submitted that the matter involved crores of rupees and the direction has been for the NHRC to inquire into the matter and file a report. 

Justice Sreedharan, in his order granting the adjournment, recorded that the Court was “astounded by the order passed by the NHRC.” Justice Sreedharan prima facie found the issue to be completely beyond the authority of the NHRC, which stemmed from the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (‘the Act’). 

Referring to Section 2(d) of the Act, the judge highlighted that ’human rights’ indicated “the rights relating to life, liberty, equality, and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in international covenants, and enforceable by courts of India.”

“The Statue”, Justice Sreedharan continued, “makes it very clear that it is only Human Rights violations as defined in the aforementioned Statute in which the Human Rights Commission, whether it be the National Human Rights Commission or the State Human Rights Commission, are empowered to take any cognizance.” The Commissions, in the Judge’s opinion, could not act as a tribunal to adjudge any case that interested them. 

The judge admitted that the NHRC could approach the Court or direct the registration of an FIR on its own volition if it felt it must intervene to protect the human rights of the citizens of this country. He, however, clarified that “this Court has doubt[s] whether such direction can be passed to the officers of the executive to act in a particular manner, in a case where human rights are not involved.”