SG Mehta condemns attack on CJI Gavai, calls it "result of misinformation on social media"

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has condemned the attempted attack on Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai which occurred inside his courtroom today on October 6.

"Today’s incident in the Chief Justice’s court is unfortunate and deserves condemnation. This is the result of misinformation in social media", SG Mehta has said.

Furthermore, SG Mehta has appreciated the Chief Justice of India for reacting with magnanimity and majesty of the highest court of the country. I only hope that this magnanimity is not treated by others as the weakness of the institution, he added. 

"I have personally seen Chief Justice visiting religious places of all religions with full reverence. The Chief Justice has also clarified this position. It is not understood what promoted one miscreant to do what he did today. It appears to be an act of some attention seeker wanting cheap publicity.", SG Mehta further said in CJI's defense. 

The Supreme Court of India today witnessed a brief moment of chaos when a lawyer, dressed in full uniform and carrying a bag along with a rolled-up bundle of papers, attempted to attack the Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, during ongoing proceedings.

The attacker was quickly restrained and escorted out of the courtroom. As he was removed, he reportedly shouted, “Sanatan ka apmaan nahi sahega Hindustan,” sparking concern among those present. He later apologized to Justice K. Vinod Chandran, clarifying that his actions were intended only for Justice Gavai.

The actions allegedly emanated after the CJI made certain remarks 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. 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".

Later the CJI had clarified his remarks and said "I respect all religions", responding to reactions on his comments made during the Khajuraho Vishnu Idol matter.

Then too, Solicitor General Mehta had defended CJI Gavai and said it was unfortunate that the CJI's remarks were made viral based upon totally incorrect information attributing something to the CJI which was taken completely out of context. He said he had known CJI since last 10 years and added that CJI visits all religious places with equal reverence and would not even think of insulting any deity. SG Mehta had 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..".

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.

Notably, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has issued a strongly worded statement condemning the advocate and said the behaviour “strikes at the very foundation of mutual respect that underpins the relationship between the Bench and the Bar” and undermines public confidence in the justice system. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the All India Lawyers Union (AILU) have also issued separate statements condemning the incident.

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”.