Reacting sharply to recent observations made during proceedings in the Allahabad High Court, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) President Alok Kumar on Tuesday (April 28) expressed “surprise” over the remarks of Justice Atul Sreedharan in a case related to madrasa administration, stating that judicial restraint is essential to preserve institutional balance.
The case in question was filed by the Teachers Association Madaries Arabia against the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). It challenges an NHRC order directing the Director General of the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Government of Uttar Pradesh, to investigate allegations including financial mismanagement in madrasas and submit an Action Taken Report (ATR).
According to Kumar, during the hearing dated April 27, 2026, the petitioner’s counsel sought an adjournment due to the unavailability of the arguing lawyer. Notably, no representative appeared on behalf of the NHRC, as it was a fresh matter and no formal notice had yet been served. The court granted the adjournment.
However, Kumar pointed out that despite the absence of arguments from either side, Justice Sreedharan proceeded to express a prima facie view questioning the jurisdiction of the NHRC in issuing such directions. “Be that as it may,” Kumar stated, adding that what followed raised deeper concerns.
In his statement, the VHP President alleged that the judge went beyond the scope of the case and made broader remarks against the NHRC, questioning its role in cases involving alleged attacks on members of the Muslim community. The judge reportedly observed that the commission had not taken cognisance in instances where “members of the Muslim community are attacked” or in cases involving vigilante actions.
Press Statement of Sh. Alok Kumar, Sr. Advocate President Vishwa Hindu Parishad on the remarks made by Justice Atul Sreedharan, Allahabad High Court in the Madarasa matter
JUDICIAL RESTRAINT ESSENTIAL TO MAINTAIN INSTITUTIONAL BALANCE
1. I am surprised by reading the order… pic.twitter.com/nMkqDe2N8T
— Vishva Hindu Parishad -VHP (@VHPDigital) April 29, 2026
Highlighting the seriousness of these remarks, Kumar noted that Justice Vivek Saran, the other judge on the bench, recorded a dissent. Justice Saran explicitly stated that he differed from the observations made by his colleague, underlining a clear division within the bench on the issue.
The VHP, while responding to the substance of the remarks, asserted that lynching or violence against any individual, irrespective of religion, is “condemnable, unlawful, and punishable.” Kumar emphasised that criminal acts cannot be associated with any religion and that offenders must face legal consequences regardless of their identity.
He further argued that attributing such incidents to targeted actions against a specific religious community without substantiated basis is “factually incorrect” and risks creating social disharmony. “Such remarks have the potential to disturb communal harmony between major communities of Bharat,” Kumar said.
Calling for greater caution, the VHP President stressed that individuals holding constitutional positions must exercise restraint in their observations, especially in sensitive matters. “Judicial restraint is all the more required from persons holding high constitutional offices,” he added.
