CJI Misquoted on Khajuraho Idol: SG Tushar Mehta, Justice Chandran Warn Against Social Media Distortion

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta today defended Chief Justice of India BR Gavai who mentioned in court how he was being misquoted regarding his recent remarks on the Lord Vishnu idol in Khajuraho.

The Chief Justice of India clarified his remarks made during a recent hearing relating to the restoration of a 7-foot beheaded idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari temple in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh. "I respect all religions", CJI Gavai said today in court while responding to reactions on his comments.

SG said it is unfortunate that it is made viral based upon totally incorrect information attributing something to the CJI which was taken completely out of context. He said he knows CJI since last 10 years. He said CJI visits all religious places with equal reverence and would not even think of insulting any deity. SD Mehta said, "I have known CJI for last ten years..this is serious..we know Newton's law, every action has equal reaction..now every action has disproportionate social media reaction..".

Justice Vinod Chandran, sharing the bench with CJI Gavai, also shared the ill effects of uninformed social media posts citing his own example when he recused in one of the matters due to an appearing lawyer. Justice Chandran said social media is in fact anti-social media.

On Tuesday, when a bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran was told that the idol was mutilated during the Mughal invasions, refusing any relief, the CJI had said, "Go and ask the deity now. You say you are a staunch devotee of Lord Vishnu, so go and pray now".

This comment resulted in a lot of backlash on social media calling out the CJI for not respecting the Hindu religion. Today, CJI Gavai referred to his remarks and said, "Someone told me the other day my comments have been portrayed on social media..I respect all religions..".

In the case, Supreme Court had opined that as Khajuraho is an archaeological site, the permission from Archeological Survey of India would be required. Filed by Rakesh Dalal, the petition claimed that the idol remained in that state despite repeated representations to the government to restore it. Dalal further told court that he had received a response from the Superintending Archaeologist that the responsibility of conservation of the Khajuraho temples lies with the Archaeological Survey of India and the replacement of the beheaded idol was against the conservation rules.

Soon enough, an advocate had formally approached the Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai requesting reconsideration and withdrawal of remarks made during the hearing that allegedly hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus. The representation made by Advocate Vineet Jindal, who described himself as a devoted follower of Sanatan Dharma and Lord Vishnu stated that while courts have full discretion to decide whether to admit or reject a petition, such discretion must be exercised with due care to ensure that religious sentiments are not unnecessarily hurt in the process.

He stressed that the observations attributed to the Bench, including the remarks “Go and ask the deity himself to do something” and the suggestion “so go and pray now,” as reported by several media outlets, have caused deep anguish to millions of Hindu devotees.

What followed in open court post the CJI's comments shows how easily matters of faith can slip into controversy. The Chief Justice’s remark was unnecessary for the legal reasoning. It was rhetorical theatre, but in the age of instant transmission, it became the headline. The order itself, based on clear statutory limits, was reduced to a footnote.

This case is not isolated. Judges in India have often made remarks on religion or belief that travelled far beyond the court record. After the Sabarimala decision, observations about custom and equality echoed in debates long after the judgment was delivered. In the Ram Janmabhoomi case, the bench was careful to temper comments, knowing the sensitivities at stake. The Karnataka hijab ban case is another reminder. Justice Hemant Gupta, who upheld the ban, asked whether permitting hijab in classrooms would also justify saffron shawls or crucifixes, pointedly questioning “where does it end?” He also suggested that wearing hijab was cultural rather than religious, triggering sharp reactions. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, dissenting, framed it as a matter of individual choice and argued that forcing young girls to remove it to attend school was unfair. What the public remembered, however, were the blunt lines on Islam and culture, not the fine constitutional reasoning. Go further back, and Justice S. N. Srivastava of the Allahabad High Court suggested that the Bhagavad Gita could be considered a “national dharma shastra”.

The Khajuraho petition was always doomed. The law bars reconstruction. The ASI had told the petitioner so in writing. The Supreme Court only reaffirmed what the statute had already said. That should have been the entire story. Instead, one passing remark became the controversy. Faith will continue to meet law in India’s courtrooms. That is inevitable in a diverse society. The challenge is ensuring that when it does, the clarity of law does not get lost in the noise of words, however loose or provocative.