The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) has criticized remarks made by Justice Atul Sreedharan of the Allahabad High Court regarding a madrasa-related case, labeling them as “factually wrong” and suggesting they could “create disharmony.” The VHP emphasized that “judicial restraint is essential to maintain institutional balance.”
These comments came during a hearing linked to a petition concerning a National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) directive, which mandated an investigation into alleged financial irregularities in madrasas. Justice Sreedharan questioned the NHRC’s functioning and referenced instances of violence against members of the Muslim community.
The court case challenges an NHRC order directing the Director General of the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) in Uttar Pradesh to investigate claims of financial mismanagement in madrasas and to prepare an action taken report. During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel requested an adjournment due to the absence of the arguing counsel, while no representative appeared for the NHRC because proper notice had not been served. Justice Sreedharan granted the adjournment but recorded a prima facie view on the NHRC’s jurisdiction and expressed broader concerns about its functioning.
VHP President Alok Kumar stated that the remarks occurred “in the absence of arguments” and suggested they were unwarranted commentary beyond the case’s scope. Kumar also highlighted a dissenting opinion from co-judge Justice Vivek Saran, who disagreed with Justice Sreedharan’s order, indicating a division within the bench.
The VHP condemned all forms of violence, including lynching, “irrespective of religion,” but objected to what they termed a selective representation of such incidents as targeting a specific community. “Criminals do not belong to any religion,” Kumar asserted, calling the remarks inaccurate and potentially socially divisive.
The organization warned that comments on sensitive communal issues, especially when irrelevant to the case at hand, could damage institutional credibility. It urged the judiciary to adhere strictly to judicial discipline and avoid broad generalizations, stressing that constitutional authorities should exercise restraint in public discourse.
