Khajuraho Temple Case: Advocate Demands CJI BR Gavai Retract Remarks on Hindu Sentiments

The Courtroom Controversy

Another controversial statement made by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai has sparked off an intense debate with one of the lawyers even demanding that he retract his words. The row broke out in one of the pleas before the Supreme Court, requesting permission of restoring a damaged idol of Lord Vishnu in the old temple of Javari Khajuraho. The court ruled to dismiss the petition was accompanied by the oral ruling of the CJI that has received immense criticism on the basis that it has hurt the religious feelings of Hindus. This case demonstrates how delicate the judicial system should be in matters of faith and law in a multiethnic society.

✖

The Remark That Sparked a Row

In the hearing, a petitioner, a self-proclaimed staunch devotee of Lord Vishnu, requested the court to issue a court order to have the re-installed a seven-foot beheaded idol. The bench headed by CJI Gavai rejected the plea saying that the case was under the jurisdiction of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The CJI, in dismissing the petition, also left a comment which was not on the record, but soon went viral. He is said to have answered the petitioner by telling him to go and ask the deity himself to act. when you are a big follower of Lord Vishnu, then pray and meditate a little.

A Clash of Faith and Law

The remark, which was much publicized on social media, received a lot of condemnation in different quarters including high ranking Hindu bodies. With the comment made, critics claimed that it was dismissive and insensitive of the religious beliefs of millions of Hindus. They argued that although the court has the mandate to dismiss a plea, they ought to exercise care and sensitivity to the religious feelings. The case has brought a renewed discussion concerning judicial language with many of them arguing that such statements are wrong even when they are not meant to be offensive. The case highlights the difficulty of courts that have to tread the fine line between secular legal norms and the deeply-rooted religious beliefs.

The Demand for Retraction

After the scandal, one of the supporters petitioned CJI Gavai to withdraw his comments. In the letter written by the advocate, the remarks, though not written and included in the final order, had hurt millions of followers in a deep anguish and created an impression of judicial insensitivity. The letter reasoned that faith was a constitutional right that must be respected by all state institutions, more so judiciary, which is a custodian of the constitutional values. The fact that the formal retraction is demanded is itself an odd measure, since the response of the public to the statement of the CJI was so severe.

CJI’s Clarification
CJI Gavai reacted to the growing criticism by providing a clarification that his comments were not accurately quoted on internet social sites, and that he honors every religion. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also joined the side of the CJI and noted that social media has a tendency to form a disproportionate response to an event. Although clarification seeks to stop the heated debate, the case has already raised a broader debate regarding judicial restraint and sensitivity in making comments on issues concerning faith. It is an indicator of the fact that in the era of immediate communication, each word uttered in the court-room can have a far reaching consequence.