VHP chief calls for judicial restraint after split verdict on madrasa probe
Mumbai: Vishwa Hindu Parishad President and Senior Advocate Alok Kumar has raised serious concerns regarding recent observations made by Justice Atul Sreedharan of the Allahabad High Court, calling for judicial restraint to maintain institutional balance.
The controversy stems from a case involving the Teachers Association Madaris Arabia and the National Human Rights Commission, where the commission had directed an inquiry into alleged financial mismanagement and infrastructure deficiencies in hundreds of madrassas across Uttar Pradesh.
During the proceedings, Justice Sreedharan expressed a prima facie opinion that the commission had exceeded its jurisdiction by involving the Economic Offences Wing in matters he suggested did not directly involve human rights.
Beyond the legal merits, the judge reportedly commented on the commission’s alleged inaction regarding incidents of lynching and vigilante violence against the Muslim community.
These remarks led to a rare public disagreement on the bench, as Justice Vivek Saran formally dissented from his colleague’s observations.
Alok Kumar described the judge’s comments as factually incorrect and potentially harmful to communal harmony.
He pointed out that the observations were made in the absence of arguments from either party, as the petitioners had requested an adjournment and the commission had not yet been served notice.
Kumar emphasised that while lynching and lawlessness are universally condemnable acts that should be punished regardless of the religion of those involved, it is inappropriate for a high constitutional office to suggest that such issues are directed exclusively at one community without factual backing.
The background of the case involves allegations that over five hundred madrassas were operating with inadequate facilities and securing government grants through collusion and bribery.
While Justice Sreedharan questioned the authority of a human rights body to oversee economic investigations, Justice Saran argued that no adverse observations should have been recorded without hearing all concerned parties.
The disagreement within the division bench highlights a significant tension regarding the scope of judicial commentary.
Kumar noted that criminals do not belong to any religion and their acts are an affront to civil society as a whole.
He concluded that restraint is an essential quality for those holding high judicial positions to ensure that legal proceedings remain focused on the law rather than personal opinions that could create social disharmony.
Following the split opinion, the matter is expected to be referred to the Chief Justice for further direction.