India Chief Justice B. R. Gavai’s oral observations on the 7 foot Vishnu deity - his reincarnation likely to be in animal kingdom

Chief Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, from the Buddhist community, recently made oral observations which were inappropriate . The Chief Justice’s oral observation in this matter does not form part of the judicial record but has nevertheless drawn concern for being dismissive and potentially offensive to the petitioners’ religious sentiments. While his point about jurisdiction resting with the ASI is valid in terms of legal procedure, the suggestion to instead “worship Shiva there” shifts away from the specific relief sought regarding Lord Vishnu and can reasonably be viewed as unnecessary, insensitive, and contrary to the neutrality expected of a judge.

Concerns with the Statement

• Unwarranted Commentary: Petitioners approached the court with a focused demand—the reinstallation of a Vishnu deity—and an observation diverting them to a Shiva linga does not address their prayer, making the comment irrelevant to the case.

• Insensitive Tone: Faith-related matters are deeply personal, and judicial remarks perceived as trivializing can appear disrespectful to devotees.

• Judicial Decorum: A Supreme Court Judge is held to the highest standard of impartiality and restraint. Any comment that could be interpreted as mocking or diminishing religious practice risks undermining the dignity of the institution.

Constitutional Dimension

• Article 25 protects the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject only to public order, morality, and health. Observations suggesting one faith practice over another can be seen as undermining this freedom.

• By contrast, the technical issue (whether ASI approval is needed) is valid and pertinent, but the additional remarks step beyond judicial necessity.

Appropriate Judicial Approach

A measured response would have been to:

• Confine judicial observations strictly to the legal mechanism (ASI permission, procedural routes, precedent).

• Avoid making religious comparisons, suggestions, or diversions that could be construed as insensitive.

• Uphold a tone of respect, neutrality, and constitutional balance, especially in religious matters.

Insults against deity of any religion should not be permitted. First muslims knocked of the head of the Vishnu deity hundreds of years ago and now a misinformed Buddhist man makes irresponsible and biased oral comments.

Below is a letter you can use to make a formal complaint:

To, The Registrar, Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi – 110201

Subject: Representation against oral observations made by Hon’ble Chief Justice of India during proceedings related to Khajuraho Temple matter

Respected Sir/Madam,

I am submitting this representation to respectfully express concern regarding certain oral observations made by Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Shri B. R. Gavai, during proceedings concerning a petition seeking reconstruction and reinstallation of a dilapidated Lord Vishnu deity in the Khajuraho Temple complex.

It has been reported that the Hon’ble Chief Justice remarked that the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), but further went on to suggest that “if you are not averse to Shaivism, you can go and worship there… there is a very big linga of Shiva, one of the biggest in Khajuraho.”

Grounds of Concern

1. Irrelevance to Judicial Exercise: While the jurisdictional point regarding ASI may have merit, the remark directing devotees to worship elsewhere goes beyond the scope of the petition and is extraneous to judicial determination.

2. Insensitive to Faith: The suggestion trivializes the petitioner’s faith-specific grievance and can be perceived as disrespectful towards the sentiments of Lord Vishnu’s devotees.

3. Contrary to Constitutional Spirit: Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. For the highest judicial authority to suggest substituting worship of one deity for another risks undermining this guarantee and may discourage litigants from seeking judicial remedies in religious matters.

4. Judicial Decorum: Oral observations of judges, especially of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, carry great institutional weight and public impact. Such remarks, though not part of the judicial record, can damage public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality and respect for India’s diverse faiths.

Prayer

In light of the above, I respectfully seek that:

• The Hon’ble Court may take note of the concerns raised over such oral observations and issue appropriate sensitization measures or advisories to ensure that judicial comments remain focused on legal and constitutional points.

• An assurance be given that matters involving faith and belief will be dealt with in strict accordance with constitutional guarantees, without unnecessary or sensitive remarks from the Bench.

I submit this representation with utmost respect towards the institution of the Supreme Court and with the sole intent of safeguarding the dignity of both the judiciary and the constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Yours faithfully,

Common men (your name)