![\"\u2018Judicial](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-130612151,imgsize-578452,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/-.jpg\")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\nNEW DELHI: The Vishwa Hindu Parishad<\/a> on Wednesday criticised the remarks made by a judge of the Allahabad High Court in a madrasa-related case, saying they were \u201cfactually wrong\u201d and risked \u201ccreating disharmony,\u201d while asserting that \u201cjudicial restraint is essential to maintain institutional balance.\u201d The reaction follows observations by Justice Atul Sreedharan, who, while hearing a petition linked to an NHRC<\/a> directive on alleged irregularities in madrasas, questioned the commission\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s jurisdiction and made broader observations on its functioning.VHP president Alok Kumar<\/a> said the remarks were made \u201cin the absence of arguments\u201d 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, \u201cirrespective of religion,\u201d but objected to what it called a selective portrayal of such incidents as targeting a particular community. \u201cCriminals do not belong to any religion,\u201d 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.<\/div>\n