‘Judicial restraint needed’: VHP hits out at Allahabad HC remarks in madrasa case | India News
New Delhi: The Vishwa Hindu Parishad On Wednesday criticized the comments made by an Allahabad High Court judge in a madrassa-related case, saying they were “factually incorrect” and risked “creating controversy” and asserted that “judicial restraint is essential to maintain institutional balance.”” The response followed the observation of Justice Atul Sreedharan, who while hearing an application linked to a petition NHRC The order, citing alleged irregularities in madrassas, questioned the effectiveness of the commission and cited examples of violence against members of the Muslim community.The case before the High Court relates to a challenge to the order of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) DG, Economic Offenses Wing (EOW), directing Uttar Pradesh to investigate 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 before the NHRC as the notice was not served. While granting the adjournment, Justice Sreedharan recorded a prima facie view questioning the jurisdiction of the NHRC and made broad observations about its functioning.VHP President Alok Kumar Said the comments were made “in the absence of logic” and went beyond the scope of the case, describing them as unwarranted comments to the NHRC. He also pointed to the recorded dissent of Associate Justice Vivek Saran, who said that he differed from the order directed by Justice Sreedharan, indicating a split within the bench.The VHP said it condemned all forms of violence, including lynching, “irrespective of religion” but objected to what it called a selective portrayal of such incidents targeting a particular community. “Criminals do not belong to any religion,” Kumar said, adding that such comments are wrong and socially divisive.The agency warned that monitoring sensitive communal issues, especially when not central to the case, could undermine institutional credibility. It urged the court to adhere strictly to judicial discipline and avoid sweeping generalizations, stressing that constitutional authorities must exercise restraint in public reasoning.
