New Delhi: The Vishwa Hindu Parishad On Wednesday he criticized comments made by an Allahabad High Court judge in a madrassa-related case, saying they were “factually incorrect” and risked “creating abnormality”, while insisting that “judicial restraint is necessary to maintain institutional balance.”The response came after comments by Justice Atul Sridharan, who was hearing a petition related to National Human Rights Commission The directive on alleged irregularities in madrassas raised questions about the functioning of the commission and mentioned incidents of violence against members of the Muslim community.The case before the high court pertains to the challenge against the order of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) which had directed the DG, Economic Offenses Wing (EOW), Uttar Pradesh, to investigate allegations including financial mismanagement in madrassas and submit an action taken report. At the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel sought adjournment due to the absence of the arguing counsel, and no one from the NHRC appeared as notice had not been served. While granting the adjournment, Justice Sridharan recorded a prima facie view questioning the jurisdiction of the NHRC and made wide-ranging comments on its functioning.vhp president Alok Kumar He said the comments were made “in the absence of logic” and went beyond the scope of the case, calling them inappropriate comments on the NHRC. He also pointed to the dissent filed by co-judge Justice Vivek Saran, who said he differed from the order given by Justice Sridharan, indicating divisions within the bench.The VHP said it condemned all forms of violence, including lynching, “regardless of religion”, but it objected to the selective portrayal of such incidents as targeting a particular community. “Criminals do not belong to any religion,” Kumar said. He said that such comments are wrong and socially divisive.The organization cautioned that comments on sensitive communal issues, especially when not central to the matter, could undermine institutional credibility. It urged courts to strictly adhere to judicial discipline and avoid sweeping generalizations, stressing that constitutional authorities should exercise restraint in public reasoning.