New Delhi: Vishwa Hindu Parish Criticizing the remarks of the Allahabad High Court judge in a madrassa-related case, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said the remarks were “factually wrong” and risked “causing disharmony” while insisting that “judicial restraint is essential to maintain balance in the system.”This reaction was based on the observation of Justice Atul Sreedharan, while hearing national human rights commission The directive on alleged irregularities in madrassas questioned the functioning of the commission and cited incidents of violence against members of the Muslim community.The case before the high court relates to a challenge to a National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) order directing the Uttar Pradesh Economic Offenses Wing (EOW) director general to investigate allegations, including financial mismanagement of madrassas, and submit an action report. During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel requested an adjournment due to the absence of defense counsel and no one was present at the NHRC hearing as notice was not served. While granting the adjournment, Justice Sridharan recorded preliminary views questioning the jurisdiction of the National Human Rights Commission and made wider observations on its functioning.VHP President Alok Kumar It said the remarks were made “without justification” and went beyond the scope of the case, calling them baseless comments about the National Human Rights Commission. He also pointed to the dissent recorded by co-judge Justice Vivek Saran, who said he differed from the order passed by Justice Sreedharan, indicating the divisions within the bench.The VHP said it condemned all forms of violence, including lynchings, “regardless of religious affiliation” but objected to the selective characterization of such incidents as targeting specific communities. “Criminals do not belong to any religion,” Kumar said, adding that such statements were inaccurate and divisive in society.The group warned that observations of sensitive community issues, especially when not at the heart of a case, could damage an agency’s credibility. It urged the courts to strictly adhere to judicial discipline and avoid generalizations and stressed that constitutional authorities must exercise restraint in their public reasoning.
