The Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) has objected to remarks made by Allahabad High Court judge Justice Atul Sreedharan, who criticised the NHRC for not taking suo motu action in cases of attacks on Muslims while ordering an inquiry into aided madrasas in Uttar Pradesh.
Published Date – 29 April 2026, 11:48 PM
New Delhi: The Vishva Hindu Parishad on Wednesday expressed concern over remarks made by an Allahabad High Court judge criticising the National Human Rights Commission over its handling of cases involving attacks on members of the Muslim community, and called for restraint, saying those in constitutional positions must avoid statements that could disturb communal harmony.
The remarks followed a hearing before a two-judge bench of the high court on a writ petition challenging an order by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) directing an inquiry into allegations against 558 aided madrasas in Uttar Pradesh.
During the hearing on April 27, Justice Atul Sreedharan criticised the rights body, expressing surprise that it directed an inquiry into such a matter when it takes no suo motu action in cases where members of the Muslim community are attacked or lynched, and when cases are either not registered against the perpetrators or not investigated properly.
The other judge on the bench, Justice Vivek Saran, however, expressed disagreement with the remarks, noting that the observations were made even as the NHRC was not represented in court and the petitioner had only sought an adjournment.
In a statement, Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) president Alok Kumar, who is also an advocate, objected to Justice Sreedharan’s remarks, saying they selectively referred to incidents involving one community, while crimes are committed by individuals irrespective of their religion.
“I would like to say that such incidents occur on both sides in Bharat. Crimes are committed by individuals irrespective of religion – be it murder by a lone individual, exploitation or coercion of women, forced religious conversions, or acts of violence and terror.
“We feel that lynching of any person, irrespective of religion, is condemnable, unlawful and punishable. We also believe that people who indulge in offences should face consequences irrespective of the religion they belong to. Criminals do not belong to any religion, and their acts are against the civil society as a whole,” he said.
Kumar also questioned the “selective reference” to such issues and termed the remarks inappropriate, noting that the other judge on the bench had also disagreed.
“Why then raise such issues selectively? Is it to suggest that the lynching of Hindus is not wrong? I believe such remarks are unnecessary and inappropriate. Even the other judge on the same bench observed that these comments were not required and expressed disagreement.
“Therefore, in the present matter, it is inappropriate to take a position that such incidents are happening against the adherents of a particular religion. The remarks are factually incorrect and have the potential to create disharmony between communities,” Kumar said.
He stressed that people holding constitutional positions must maintain balance to avoid fuelling tensions.
“In my view, people holding constitutional positions have a greater responsibility to maintain balance. Creating an impression that such incidents happen only against one community can disturb communal harmony and incite tensions between communities,” he said.
Kumar added that those in high offices should refrain from making statements that could be perceived as divisive.
“The restraint is all the more required from persons holding high constitutional offices.”
The case relates to a writ petition filed by the Teachers Association Madaris Arabia, challenging an inquiry being conducted by the Economic Offences Wing in Lucknow against 558 madrasas following the NHRC’s order.
The NHRC had acted on a complaint alleging that the madrasas were operating in collusion with officials of the minority welfare department and were receiving government grants without meeting the prescribed standards.
The complaint also alleged irregularities in the recruitment of teachers.
The petition before the high court contended that the NHRC is not empowered to order an inquiry into alleged violations beyond one year from the date of the incident.
During the hearing, Justice Sreedharan said, “Instead of taking suo motu cognisance in which members of the Muslim community are attacked and lynched in some cases, and where cases are not registered against the perpetrators or not investigated properly, the human rights commissions are seen dabbling in matters that prima facie do not concern them.”
“This court is not aware of the NHRC taking suo motu cognisance in situations where vigilantes take the law into their own hands and harass ordinary citizens, or harass individuals on account of the nature of relationships between persons of different communities, or where even having a cup of coffee at a public place with a person from a different religion becomes a fearful act,” he observed.
“Under the circumstances, looking into the nature of this case, specifically the manner in which the NHRC has gone ahead and accepted the complaint in a case where prima facie there was no human rights involved, the adjournment sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner is granted. The objection of the state for non-grant of adjournment is rejected,” Justice Sreedharan said.
