New Delhi: A division bench of the Allahabad high court has made a sharp observation against the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) while staying the Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to entrust the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) with an investigation into madrasas in the state. The court said it was “astounded” by the orders passed by the NHRC while it remained silent on the numerous attacks and lynchings on Muslim community.While Justice Atul Sreedharan observed that the state and national human rights commissions have failed to take suo motu cognisance in matters of assaults and lynching of Muslims in the country, Justice Vivek Saran instead highlighted that the commissions were focusing on matters beyond their jurisdiction.The matter was based on a petition moved by Teachers Association Madaris Arabia against orders passed by the NHRC in relation to the madrasa in Uttar Pradesh. “Prima-facie, this Court is astounded by the order passed by the NHRC. The powers of the NHRC and its ambit and scope of application, arise from the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993,” the interim order read.“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,” said Justice Sreedharan, as quoted by Bar and Bench.He highlighted that the court was not aware of even the NHRC taking suo-motu cognisance in such situations where vigilantes take the law in their hands and harass ordinary citizens of the country due to their different communities. “But instead it has the time to entertain matters which would fall within the precincts of the high court under Article 226 and which could be effectively render justice,” the judge said. Even having a cup of coffee at a public place with a person of different faith becomes a fearful act sometimes, he added.Article 226 of the Indian constitution gives high courts to issue certain writs to government, authority or person to enforce fundamental and legal rights, and to check unlawful actions by authorities.According to Bar and Bench, Justice Saran disagreed on these points, and noted, “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 also said that for an order touching on the merits of the case or the role of the NHRC, all parties concerned ought to have been heard.“I am also conscious of the fact that a writ court can pass an order even in the absence of any particular party. However, in the instant case… 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,” Justice Saran said.The court granted the adjournment sought by the petitioner and rejected the state’s objections. It is expected to hear the matter again on May 11.