'Having Coffee In Public Becomes A Fearful Act': Allahabad HC's Justice Sreedharan Slams NHRC Silence On Inter-Faith Couples' Harassment

The Allahabad High Court on Monday witnessed a rare split among the judges on a division bench over strong remarks against the functioning of the National Human Rights Commission.

While Justice Atul Sreedharan observed that the Human Rights Body was ignoring the lynching of members of the Muslim community and harassment of interfaith couples, Justice Vivek Saran disagreed with the sweeping observations.

Briefly put, the Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by the Teachers Association Madaris Arabia, which challenged the orders passed by the NHRC in February 2025, directing the EOW to inquire into allegations against 558 aided Madrasas in the State of UP.

Justice Sreedharan, at the outset, questioned the NHRC for stepping outside its jurisdiction by directing an inquiry into allegations made against the Madrasas.

He expressed surprise that while NHRC intervened in such a matter, it takes no suo-motu action in cases where the members of the muslim community are attacked or lynched and where cases are not registered against perpetrators or not investigated properly.

Importantly, he also observed that the 'NHRC' and the 'Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission' are seen 'dabbling' in matters that prima facie do not concern them, while ignoring the harassment of interfaith couples, for whom even having a cup of coffee in a public place becomes a 'fearful' act.

"This Court is not aware of the NHRC taking suo-motu cognizance in situations where vigilantes take the law in their own hands and harass the 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 different religion becomes a fearful act," the bench observed.

Justice Sreedharan remarked that no instance was before him in which the UP SHRC or the NHRC had taken suo-motu cognisance of such cases.

Justice Vivek Saran, on the other hand, differed from these views and sweeping remarks, observing that the NHRC was not represented before the Court and that the order was passed even though the petitioner was not arguing the case and had 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.

Furthermore, he also added that while a writ court can pass an order even in the absence of any particular party, in the instant case, when definite observations were being made, 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," Justice Saran noted as he expressed disagreement with the views of Justice Sreedharan.

Justice Saran, however, agreed with Justice Sreedharan's decision to issue notice to the NHRC and extend the interim stay on the Commission's order, which was initially granted in September last year.

Read more about the case here : Surprising That NHRC Orders Inquiry Into UP Madrasas But No Suo-Moto Action On Lynchings, Vigilantism: Allahabad HC's Justice Atul Sreedharan