NEW DELHI: The Vishwa Hindu Parishad on Wednesday criticized the remarks made by a judge of the Allahabad High Court in a madrasa-related case, saying they were “factually wrong” and risked “creating disharmony,” while asserting that “judicial restraint is essential to maintain institutional balance.” The reaction follows observations by Justice Atul Sreedharan, who, while hearing a petition linked to an NHRC directive on alleged irregularities in madrasas, questioned the commission’s functioning and referred to instances of violence against members of the Muslim community.The case before the high court pertains to a challenge against a National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) order directing the DG, Economic Offenses Wing (EOW), Uttar Pradesh, to probe allegations including financial mismanagement in madrasas and submit an action taken report. At the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel sought an adjournment due to the absence of the arguing counsel, and no one appeared for the NHRC as notice had not been served. While granting adjournment, Justice Sreedharan recorded a prima facie view questioning the NHRC’s jurisdiction and made broader observations on its functioning.VHP president Alok Kumar said the remarks were made “in the absence of arguments” and went beyond the scope of the case, describing them as unwarranted commentary on the NHRC. He also pointed to the dissent recorded by co-judge Justice Vivek Saran, who stated that he differed from the order dictated by Justice Sreedharan, indicating a split within the bench.VHP said it condemns all forms of violence, including lynching, “irrespective of religion,” but objected to what it called a selective portrayal of such incidents as targeting a particular community. “Criminals do not belong to any religion,” Kumar said, adding that such remarks are inaccurate and socially divisive.The organization cautioned that observations on sensitive communal issues, especially when not central to the case, could undermine institutional credibility. It urged courts to adhere strictly to judicial discipline and avoid sweeping generalizations, stressing that constitutional authorities must exercise restraint in public reasoning.
