NEW DELHI: The Vishwa Hindu Parishad on Wednesday criticised 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 Offences 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 organisation 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 generalisations, stressing that constitutional authorities must exercise restraint in public reasoning.About the AuthorManash Pratim GohainManash Pratim Gohain is a seasoned journalist with over two decades at The Times of India, where he has built a rich body of work spanning education policy, politics, and governance. Renowned for his incisive coverage of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, accreditation reforms, and skilling initiatives, he has also reported on student politics, urban policy, and social movements. His political reportage—both reflective and news-driven—adds depth to his writing, bridging policy with public impact. Through his 2,500 articles and related outlets, he has emerged as a trusted voice in national discourse, particularly in linking education reform to broader societal change.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosRaghav Chadha Fallout: Who Really Wins and Loses in Punjab?Mumbai–Pune Expressway’s ‘Missing Link’ Opens May 1: Faster Travel, Better Safety, No Extra Toll90-Year-Old Rejects Apology, Then Court Pushes ₹20 Crore Case to 2046Ganga Expressway Inaugurated: What ₹1,500 Toll Gets You on UP’s 594-km High-Speed Corridor | PM ModiUAE Quits OPEC In Big Oil Shake-Up: What It Means For India‘Siddaramaiah Ready To Step Down As Karnataka CM If Rahul Gandhi Asks’: Ex-Minister RajannaBengal Phase 2 Polls: 142 Constituencies Vote Today, Over 3.21 Crore Voters to DecideChokepoints of Power: how India can ‘trump’ China on the seasSwati Maliwal’s Explosive Exit: Assault Allegations, ‘Betrayal’ Charges Rock AAP As She Joins BJPIndian Aviation Sector Warns Of Possible Shutdown Amid Soaring Fuel Costs123PhotostoriesWhy does day-old rice get dry in the refrigerator? 4 easy fixes to keep it soft and fluffy‘Ted Lasso’ season 4 release: Here is all you need to knowShe thought it was stress, doctors found a hormone disorderTamannaah Bhatia serves Andy Sachs energy at ‘The Devil Wears Prada’ India screening in a dramatic David Koma ensembleJyotiraditya Scindia carries an onion in his pocket: Why Indians follow this tradition in summerIs your child not serious about studies? 5 parental behaviours that could be the reasonTMC’s fort or BJP’s breakthrough? The 7 districts that will decide who rules Nabanna‘Baahubali 2’ 9 year anniversary: Top 5 iconic scenes that defined Prabhas’ superstardom5 Pokémon that secretly exist in the real world“I’ve been smoking for years and I’m fine”: What doctors say about delayed damage123Hot PicksExit Poll Result 2026Bengal Election 2026Bengal Poll Phase 2 ViolenceFirhad HakimMK StalinExit Poll PredictionsHimanta Biswa SarmaTop TrendingAssembly Election Exit PollsExit Poll results 2026Bengal Exit Polls 2026Puducherry Exit Polls 2026IPL Match TodayMI vs SRH Live ScoreRaja Raghuvanshi Wife BailBengal PollsCGBSE 12th ResultIPL Orange Cap
NEW DELHI: The Vishwa Hindu Parishad on Wednesday criticised 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 Offences 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 organisation 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 generalisations, stressing that constitutional authorities must exercise restraint in public reasoning.
