CJI Clarifies Statement on Lord Vishnu Idol Plea Dismissal, Says Remarks Are Being Misrepresented Online
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai has clarified that his remarks during a recent hearing on a plea related to the Javari Temple in Khajuraho are being misrepresented on social media. He emphasized, “I respect all religions.”
What Happened?
- On Tuesday, CJI Gavai dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the reconstruction and reinstallation of a seven-foot idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari Temple, part of the UNESCO World Heritage Site in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh.
- The petitioner, Rakesh Dalal, had requested that the damaged idol be replaced and consecrated.
What Did the CJI Say?
During the hearing, the Supreme Court bench, headed by CJI Gavai, refused to entertain the plea, stating:
“This is purely publicity interest litigation. Go and ask the deity himself to do something. If you are a strong devotee of Lord Vishnu, then pray and meditate.”
He clarified that such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), not the courts:
“It’s an archaeological find. Whether ASI permits such a thing is another issue entirely.”
Social Media Backlash & Clarification
- The CJI’s remarks quickly went viral, sparking backlash and misinterpretation on social media platforms.
- On Thursday, Justice Gavai responded:
“I respect all religions… This happened on social media.”
Support from Legal Community
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the Chief Justice, stating:
“I’ve known CJI Gavai for 10 years. He has visited all religious places. Every action now faces disproportionate social media reaction.”
- Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal added:
“We suffer every day. Social media is an unruly horse — and there’s no way to tame it.”
CJI Gavai also compared the situation to a similar incident in Nepal, noting:
“In Nepal also, it happened that way.”
This incident highlights the influence of social media on judicial discourse and raises questions about the limits of judicial commentary, freedom of expression, and public interpretation. The CJI’s clarification aims to reaffirm the judiciary’s secular and balanced approach.
