Allahabad: In an unusual development, two judges of an Allahabad High Court division bench passed separate interim orders after disagreeing sharply with each other over observations concerning the functioning of human rights commissions in the country.
The bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Vivek Saran was hearing a petition filed by the 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 the NHRC’s jurisdiction to direct a probe into madrasas, went further and made pointed observations about a pattern of selective engagement by human rights commissions across the country.
NHRC getting into matters that don’t concern it: Justice Sreedharan
“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 said.
The judge said the court was not aware of the NHRC taking suo motu cognisance in situations where vigilantes take the law into their own hands and harass ordinary citizens. He particularly highlighted the harassment of people over interfaith relationships, remarking that even sharing a cup of coffee in a public place with a person of a different religion had become a source of fear for some.
“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,” Justice Sreedharan observed.
Differ from observations: Justice Saran
Justice Saran, however, declined to associate himself with these observations and dictated a separate order on record.
“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,” he said.
Justice Saran also flagged a procedural concern, noting that observations of such consequence ought not to have been made without hearing all parties. “When 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,” he said.
The matter now stands listed for further hearing before the bench.
