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.”
‘Even having a cup of coffee at a public place with the person of different religion becomes a fearful act’: Justice Sreedharan
Going further, Justice Sreedharan’s order inveighed against the NHRC for dabbling in issues that did not concern them and diverting themselves away from incidents of lynching and violence against the Muslim community. It stated, “[i]nstead 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.”
It further stated that the Court was unaware of any instance of the NHRC taking suo-motu cognizance against the vigilantes taking the law in their own hands and harassing individuals in interfaith relationships “where even having a cup of coffee at a public place with the person of different religion becomes a fearful act.” After this, Justice Sreedharan granted an adjournment and ordered the NHRC to appear before the Court and file its response. He further extended the stay granted against the NHRC order by the Court in September 2025.
In his dissenting order (W.P.(C) No. 32051 of 2025), Justice Saran, although he agreed with the operative part of the order granting the adjournment, took issue with the comments made on the merits of the case or the NHRC's overall performance in discharging its duties. He stated that he was conscious that a writ court can pass an order even in the absence of any particular party; however, in the present case, it would have been more fitting if certain definite statements in Justice Sreedharan’s order against the NHRC were made in the presence of the party. This disagreement forced him to differ from Justice Sreedharan’s order.
Recurring criticism against the NHRC
This is not the first time that the NHRC has come under suspicion in recent times. Significantly, the institution’s global reputation has tottered during the past few years. Most explicitly, in the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions’ (GANHRI) decision to suspend the NHRC’s ‘A status’ twice in two years — in 2023 and 2024 — for the first time in its 31-year history.The GANHRI ranks NHRI based on its compliance with the Paris Principles adopted in 1993 by the UN that all NHRI’s must meet. They include principles such as autonomy from government, independence guaranteed by a statute or constitution, pluralism, adequate resources, and adequate powers of investigation. Institutions assessed as fully compliant with the Paris Principles are granted ‘A status’, and those assessed partially compliant receive ‘B-status’. GANHRI raised several concerns that, in its assessment, rendered the NHRC systemically unable to meet the Paris Principles.
Structural problem with NHRC’s composition
It has, on multiple occasions, drawn attention to the institution’s selection process of its members and has not found it “sufficiently broad and transparent”. The composition of the NHRC is outlined in Section 3 of the Act, which provides for the NHRC to include a chairperson and five members. The chairperson must be a retired Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court, and at least one member must be a former Supreme Court judge, and another must be a former Chief Justice of a High Court. The benchmark for the remaining two members, however, is vague.
According to the Act, members must be appointed based on their knowledge and practical experience in human rights. The provision does not clarify the requirements for a demonstrated track record in the field of human rights. This has allowed the appointment of members who are often former police officers and those with ideological and political leanings. While the appointment of police officers is not by itself problematic, the situation becomes troubling when seen in the backdrop of the fact that quite a lot of complaints filed with the Commission concern custodial torture and police violence. The Act also extends ex officio membership to chairpersons of other National Commissions, such as the National Commission for Women and the National Commission for Minorities.
Moreover, in accordance with Section 4 of the Act, the appointment process is further complicated by the role of the six-member committee on whose recommendations the president appoints the members of the Commission. The Prime Minister heads the Committee. It further includes the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, and the Leaders of the Opposition in both houses of Parliament. In the above scheme, barring the Leader of Opposition of the two houses, all members of the committee are usually from the ruling party. This makes the committee skewed in favour of the party in power.
Underrepresentation of minorities
Another cause of concern has been the NHRC’s inability to represent the minority communities of the country. The Sub-Committee on Accreditation (‘SCA’) of the GANHRI, in its 2024 report, flagged various hurdles in the sufficient representation of gender and minority groups. It criticised the emphasis on the judicial backgrounds of most appointed members of the Commission, which limits the diversity of perspectives and experiences needed for a comprehensive approach to human rights.
The SCA has repeatedly pointed out in its past assessments that the NHRC’s current membership structure does not meet the Paris Principles’ expectations of pluralism, particularly as it includes only one woman. This concern is echoed in the SCA’s 2024 review, which noted that women account for just 20 percent of the NHRC staff, with only 24 percent of them coming from minority backgrounds. In over three decades of its existence, the commission has had only three women members—Justice Fathima Beevi, Justice Sujata Manohar, and Vijaybaharathi. Furthermore, no Muslim individual has been appointed to the NHRC in its 31-year history.
Overlooking significant human rights issues
The most worrying issue with the NHRC has been its silence on multiple far-reaching and grievous human rights violations, especially when the government is the alleged perpetrator or the matter is considered politically sensitive.
Consider, for instance, the police firing in Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu, on May 22, 2018, when certain officers opened fire on peaceful demonstrators protesting against a copper smelter associated with environmental dangers, which led to the killing of 16 people. While the Commission conducted the investigation, the matter was wrapped up within five months, relying entirely on the Tamil Nadu government's response without holding anyone accountable. Also, it did not make its investigative reports public. This represents a small nugget out of an enduring pattern of neglect on the NHRC’s part.
Data from the Ministry of Home Affairs shows consistently high custodial deaths, with figures ranging from 100 to 175 annually between 2017 and 2022. States like Gujarat and Maharashtra reported the highest numbers. Despite this, the NHRC has recorded only 440 fake encounter cases nationwide in the past decade, even as reports suggest over 1,500 such incidents in Manipur alone. In 2021-22, the NHRC received thousands of custodial death intimations. These figures reflect not isolated incidents but a systemic pattern of violence, marked by custodial torture and extrajudicial killings. The NHRC’s response has been widely criticised as inadequate due to weak investigations, delayed intervention, and limited accountability.
Another issue that the NHRC has treated with persistent silence has been the recurring deployment by certain state governments of what has proudly been termed as ‘bulldozer justice’— illegal demolition on the grounds of encroachment of houses and constructions of individuals whom the government wishes to punish without due process. While the Supreme Court has held such demolitions to be against the rule of law, the NHRC has been mostly absent from the discourse. For instance, the NHRC remained silent after communal violence erupted on July 31, 2023 during a Hindu procession in Nuh, Haryana, which spread to nearby areas. In the aftermath, authorities targeted Muslim residents by demolishing homes and making arbitrary arrests, often bypassing due process.
On the other hand, the NHRC has been seen dabbling in matters beyond its mandate and moving beyond its legislative mandate. In 2023, the Supreme Court dismissed the NHRC’s plea against the Calcutta High Court ruling that set aside its decision to appoint observers for the 2023 West Bengal Panchayat elections. It held that the NHRC’s actions violated Article 243K by encroaching on the State Election Commission’s (‘SEC’) exclusive authority, effectively creating parallel supervision of elections. The Court reaffirmed that the NHRC must act within its statutory mandate and cannot assume constitutional functions of the SEC.
A toothless tiger?
The NHRC was established in the hope of creating an independent and autonomous body that ensures that the constitutional guarantees of human rights do not remain a hollow promise. The Courts, on multiple occasions, have insisted that the NHRC is not a toothless tiger, and its directions are binding on government officials. On top of that, it has broad powers to initiate investigations into human rights violations, approach the Court for enforcement of its directives, and issue commands, such as the registration of FIRs.
Despite this, unfortunately, after more than three decades of its formation, the Commission’s track record has been far from laudatory. It has been assailed on multiple occasions for its tendency to toe the line of the ruling administration, avoid controversial issues, and its failure to represent members of minority communities adequately. The reputation of the Commission has thus become stained with the tag of a government department. Any substantial change in the Commission’s demeanour requires structural changes that would allow it to operate independently of the government and take on a representative character. Justice Sreedharan’s observations should not be seen in isolation from these deteriorating circumstances. They represent a collective discomfort with a continued degeneration of the Commission. One would hope that the observations, whether superfluous or not, act as a clarion call to reinvigorate the democratic and autonomous spirit of the Commission.
