In a recent Supreme Court hearing, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai’s remark—“Go and ask the deity himself”—sparked widespread debate over the boundaries of judicial expression and religious sensitivity. The comment, made while dismissing a PIL seeking restoration of a Vishnu idol’s missing head at Khajuraho’s Javari Temple, triggered emotional reactions and even courtroom disruption. This incident has reignited discussions on the role of the judiciary in faith-based matters, the tone of judicial discourse, and the delicate balance between constitutional authority and cultural reverence in India’s pluralistic society.

• The Javari Temple, part of the UNESCO World Heritage Khajuraho complex, houses a seven-foot-tall idol of Lord Vishnu that is missing its head. The rest of the idol—arms, legs, and torso—is intact and features intricate Nagara-style carvings dating back to the Chandela period.
• A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) sought restoration of the missing head of a Vishnu idol at the Javari Temple.
• CJI Gavai dismissed the plea, remarking: “Go and ask the deity himself to do something. If you are a strong devotee, then pray and meditate.”
• The comment was perceived by some as sarcastic or dismissive, triggering backlash from religious groups and legal professionals.

Reaction

• The CJI’s comment sparked outrage among some religious groups and individuals.
• A lawyer named Rakesh Kishore attempted to throw a shoe at the CJI inside the courtroom, citing the Vishnu idol case as his motivation.
• Kishore claimed he was deeply hurt by the dismissal and felt the deity was insulted.

Judicial Perspective

Scope of Judicial Intervention

• The Supreme Court emphasized that heritage restoration falls under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), not the judiciary.
• The remark may have been intended to highlight the limits of judicial power in matters of faith and archaeology.

Tone and Sensitivity

• While legally sound, the tone of the comment was seen as insensitive to religious sentiments.
• Judges are expected to maintain judicial decorum and empathy, especially in emotionally charged cases.

Public Reaction and Fallout

• The remark led to public outrage, culminating in a lawyer attempting to throw a shoe at the CJI inside the courtroom.
• The incident raised concerns about security, professional ethics, and the emotional volatility surrounding faith-based issues.

Governance and Institutional Implications

Balancing Rationality and Faith

• Courts must navigate the intersection of law and belief with care, ensuring that legal reasoning doesn’t alienate cultural values.

Respect for Religious Sentiment

• Even when dismissing a plea, the judiciary must communicate with dignity, recognizing the symbolic weight of religious icons.

Civic Conduct and Protest

• The shoe-throwing incident underscores the need for civil discourse, even in disagreement. Protest must remain within the bounds of law.

What to learn?.

• Judicial restraint must be matched by judicial empathy.
• Faith-based litigation requires a delicate balance between constitutional principles and cultural sensitivity.
• Public institutions must foster trust through respectful engagement, not just legal correctness.

The controversy surrounding CJI Gavai’s remark underscores the delicate balance between judicial restraint and cultural sensitivity in a diverse democracy like India. While courts must uphold constitutional boundaries and avoid overreach into religious or archaeological domains, they must also communicate with empathy and respect for public sentiment. The incident serves as a reminder that institutional dignity and citizen trust are built not only on legal reasoning but also on the tone and temperament of public discourse. In an era of heightened emotional and symbolic politics, the judiciary’s role as a stabilizing force demands both clarity and compassion.