A Controversial Courtroom Exchange
On September 16, during a hearing at the Supreme Court, Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai made a remark that has since spiraled into one of the sharpest controversies faced by a sitting Chief Justice in recent years. Responding to a petition seeking the reconstruction of a seven-foot beheaded idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari Temple in Madhya Pradesh, Gavai dismissed the plea as “publicity interest litigation.” He then told the petitioner: “Go and ask the deity itself to do something. If you are such a staunch devotee of Lord Vishnu, pray and meditate.”
What Gavai likely intended as a firm rejection of a case outside judicial purview has been widely interpreted as ridicule of Hindu faith. The comment ignited a storm online, with hashtags demanding his impeachment trending for days.
Why the Petition Was Rejected
The bench clarified that the matter fell under the Archaeological Survey of India’s jurisdiction, not the judiciary. According to the court, the restoration of archaeological artifacts required scientific and administrative approval rather than judicial orders. Gavai further suggested that the petitioner, if inclined, could worship at the nearby Shiva Linga, one of the largest in Khajuraho.
The exchange in court added fuel to the fire. After the bench rejected the plea, the CJI remarked: “This is purely publicity interest litigation. Go and ask the deity himself to do something. If you are a strong devotee, then you pray and meditate.” He went on to state that “in the meantime, if you are not averse to Shaivism, you can go and worship there — there is a very big linga of Shiva, one of the biggest in Khajuraho.” To many critics, this sounded dismissive and disrespectful of the petitioner’s faith, triggering outrage beyond legal circles.
Outrage and Calls for Impeachment
Within hours, lawyers, activists, and citizens expressed outrage. Social media was flooded with posts accusing the CJI of mocking Hindu beliefs. Some went further, arguing that he had disrespected not just a community but the sanctity of the judiciary itself.
“Is BR Gavai not the CJI of a billion Hindus? He has disgraced the judiciary. Impeachment is the only answer,” wrote one user. Others accused him of bias, alleging that he would never make such comments toward petitions concerning other religions. A few even linked his background, arguing that his appointment reflected caste-based preference rather than merit — an assertion that inflamed the debate further.
The Judiciary Under Scrutiny
The controversy highlights a deeper tension between India’s judiciary and public perceptions. Judges are expected to balance constitutional reasoning with sensitivity to faith in a country where religion is intertwined with daily life. Even when dismissing cases, the language used by the bench can shape how the judiciary is seen by the public.
Past instances show that public faith in courts often wavers when remarks appear irreverent to cultural or religious traditions. The present storm underscores how, in an age of social media amplification, even a single line from the Chief Justice can spark calls for his removal.
Gavai’s Clarification and Legal Fraternity’s Response
Amid growing criticism, CJI Gavai clarified days later that his words had been misrepresented and emphasized that he respects all religions equally. His colleagues also came to his defense. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta noted that in today’s climate, “every action has a disproportionate social media reaction,” while senior advocate Kapil Sibal described platforms like X as “an unruly horse” that cannot be easily reined in.
These responses reflect the judiciary’s broader concern: how to function independently without being overwhelmed by waves of online opinion that may not reflect nuanced legal reasoning.
Balancing Faith and Constitutional Duty
At the heart of the debate lies a crucial question — how should courts handle cases involving faith? While the judiciary must remain firmly grounded in law and constitutional limits, its language carries symbolic weight in a diverse society. A perceived slight to religious belief, intentional or not, can erode public trust in institutions meant to protect all communities equally.
Lessons from the Controversy
CJI Gavai’s remark has exposed the fragile space in which India’s judiciary operates — bound by law but judged by sentiment. Though his clarification stresses respect for all religions, the backlash signals that courts must be mindful of phrasing even in dismissals. The episode also raises questions about how quickly public discourse escalates into demands for impeachment, often without examining the judicial context.
Going forward, the incident is a reminder for both judges and citizens: faith and constitutional duty must not be set in conflict. The judiciary’s credibility depends not only on sound rulings but also on its ability to communicate them with sensitivity in a society where belief remains deeply rooted.
(With agency inputs)
