“Thank You, CJI—Your Remark Has Exposed the Urgent Need to Free Temples from Government Control as well as courts intervention at primary stage and Uphold Constitutional Equality.”
The issue
During the hearing of a petition seeking the restoration of a seven-foot beheaded idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari Temple in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh, the bench led by Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble B.R. Gavai, dismissed the plea, noting that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) is responsible for the maintenance and restoration of heritage structures. In an offhand comment, he said, “Go and ask the deity itself to do something now. You say you are a staunch devotee of Lord Vishnu. So go and pray now.”
This remark triggered strong criticism on social media and among several Hindu organizations, with many finding it insensitive. Some advocates even urged the Chief Justice to clarify or withdraw his statement. Justice Gavai later clarified that he respects all religions and never intended to hurt anyone’s faith.
Key Questions Raised
1. Should judges make such remarks to plaintiffs in
matters of faith and heritage?
2. How can devotees or plaintiffs with similar grievances seek redress without feeling humiliated?
3. Can the government proactively create a mechanism
that spares the judiciary and the faithful from such conflicts?
Judicial Decorum and Faith: Why Judges Must Decide Cases—Not Direct Plaintiffs to God
Over the past decade, several Supreme Court judges’ informal or offhand remarks have sparked constitutional and jurisprudential debate. Oral comments from the bench, though not binding, shape public perception of judicial neutrality. The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997) instructs judges to maintain courtesy, patience, and impartiality, while the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct emphasize propriety and the avoidance of impropriety. A flippant remark—however unintended—risks undermining these standards and eroding public trust.
Judicial Ethics and Decorum
The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997) urges judges to uphold courtesy, patience, and impartiality, while the Bangalore Principles stress propriety and avoiding impropriety. Even a casual remark—such as telling a litigant to “pray to God”—can seem dismissive and risk undermining these standards, however unintended.
Why It Feels Unequal
Courts have sometimes shown stronger protection for sites of other faiths. For instance, Law Beats (19 Aug 2025) reported the Supreme Court directing the ASI to preserve monuments in Delhi’s Mehrauli Archaeological Park, including the 12th-century Ashiq Allah Dargah and Chillagah of Baba Farid. To many, such contrasts—strict safeguards for some, levity for others—can feel inconsistent.
Possible Reasons
One factor may be the absence of structured orientation for new Supreme Court judges,
“In India, there is no mandatory, structured training program exclusively for Supreme Court judges once they are elevated to the apex court.”
This gap can create uneven sensitivity in culturally delicate matters. It also recalls past concerns over judicial governance—most notably the 2018 press conference where four senior judges accused then-CJI Dipak Misra of selectively assigning cases without clear rationale.
What the aggrieved person should do? when court refuses to intervene, ask him to pray and label him as publicity seeker.
For more than a millennium Hindus and their temples have suffered persecution, independence has not mitigated their woes, at times even governments are encroaching upon temple lands and financial resources. Author Sandeep Singh has given a detailed case study on the Jagannath temple of puri and so many other temples in his books ‘Temple economics’ and ‘A decade for temples’. The tolerant and law-abiding Hindus and their organisations have always approached the courts for justice. Till now justice was delayed but now a new situation has arisen. Let’s assume that the devotee prays as directed by the honourable CJI and lord Vishnu appears in his prayers and motivates him to do the job himself! Will the administration or the court will accept the outcome? It may look like stretching the matter too far but delayed justice in Ram Janam Bhumi case has already led to so many unpleasant events.
Is it not a good sign that people still believe in courts and come for redressal of their grievances.
Would it not been better that the court could have referred the matter to ASI or government for taking suitable action or dismissed it without personal remark?
Why central government should intervene.
The present government has focus on a mission, ‘India to become a developed nation by 2047’. Avoidable agitations create a roadblock. It has brought a bill to curb the misuse of Waqf bill by vested groups.
Sita Ram Goel's book "Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them" listed over 1,800 Muslim structures built over or using materials from demolished temples. From Avantipora in Kashmir to deep south one can see demolished temples or statues in the temples or in the museums, only Somnath temple was revived and now Ram Lalla temple Ayodhya has been built by public. No attempt has been made to heal the wounds. To the contrary encroachment on temples’ land is ongoing unabated as mentioned above. Even when a court case is on, people with the vested interests make mockery of the deity. One such debate on electronic media has gone ugly.
While hearing Nupur Sharma’s plea to club FIRs filed against her, a two-judge bench (Justices Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala) made strong oral comments. They said her remarks had “set the country on fire” and suggested she had a “loose tongue.” These were not part of a written order—just remarks during proceedings, but the bench did not issue any directives against the news channel, debate anchor or the other participant who seems to had a loose tongue!
The nation cannot waste time, money and human lives on such issue. A permanent solution will reduce the unrest as well as the load on the courts which are already overburdened.
The time has come that the government should take a leaf from the comment of CJI and form a policy which takes care of such matters.
Is it possible to initiate such action.
Government and public sector organisations had been facing the issue of encroachment on their properties. Central government passed ‘public property act’ and empowered these institutions by authorising these to have their own estate officers having judicial powers to decide disputes related to their properties. It has worked well and reduced the load on civil courts. Similarly with acts like Waqf board minorities have been empowered to manage their religious properties. Therefore, it will be a move in the right direction if a Santan board is created with similar mandate and legal authority.
Why Santana board for preserving and protecting temples and other properties, is a must?
Unlike other institutions temples are being encroached by state governments as well and fighting there is a losing battle. Navin Patnaik government demolished tens of temples and muths for creating facilities for pilgrims. These were hundreds of years old temples. The puri Shankaracharya who has a strong following and Aditya Vahini youth wing could save parts of his mutt. A brief summary.
= The head of the Govardhan Math, Shankaracharya argued strongly against state control over the Math and its properties.
= In 2019, the Odisha state cabinet passed a resolution to amend the Endowment Act.
= This amendment exempted the Govardhan Math from the Act's purview, giving the Puri Shankaracharya independent control over the Math's properties and affairs.
This legislative change effectively secured the Math's lands from government control and potential sale, ensuring their preservation. But many other maths were destroyed.
“Odisha CM criticised over demolition of heritage structures’
The Hindu March 02, 2021 - BHUBANESWAR
A Locked Temple in Sambhal U.P, Has Unlocked History.
No—this is not another mosque-versus-temple dispute. In December 2024, a Shiva–Hanuman temple hidden for nearly half a century was rediscovered during an anti-encroachment drive in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh. The temple had been locked away for 46 years, its existence fading from public memory since the communal riots of the late 1970s.
District authorities stumbled upon the site while conducting routine inspections for illegal electricity connections and excessive noise levels. What began as a mundane administrative check turned into a remarkable archaeological revelation:
Timeline of Events
= A district team, inspecting for unauthorized electricity usage and noise compliance, noticed a locked and unused structure.
= On breaking open the doors, they entered a long-abandoned sanctum and discovered a Shivling and a Hanuman idol, confirming it as a Hindu temple.
= The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) subsequently excavated the site and verified its ancient origins, uncovering traces of its forgotten past.
Why It Was Locked
= The temple had been sealed in 1978, after communal violence displaced the local Hindu community.
= In later years, attempts to conceal the temple through fresh construction were also noted, effectively erasing it from the town’s living memory.
The Larger Lesson.
This incident highlights not only a remarkable rediscovery but also the helplessness of ordinary citizens when cultural or religious heritage lacks formal protection. Had a statutory authority with defined powers existed to safeguard temples and other sacred sites, this history might never have been buried. Establishing such a body could preserve heritage, prevent communal flashpoints, and reduce the burden on courts that are often forced to arbitrate in similar disputes. The investment in such an institution would be amply repaid in the communal harmony and cultural continuity it would foster.
The Role of the Law Minister and Law Commission: Defusing Tension Between Judiciary, Faith, and Heritage.
Disputes involving temples, mosques, and heritage sites often stir strong emotions, and even a casual remark can trigger public outrage. To prevent such incidents from escalating into deeper mistrust between the judiciary, faith communities, and the government, the Law Commission and Law Minister can act as constructive intermediaries.
1. Clarify the Context and Facts
2. The Law Commission’s Strategic Role
3. The Law Minister’s Bridging Function
By Rakesh Kumar
(The content of this article reflects the views of writers and contributors, not necessarily those of the publisher and editor. All disputes are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of competent courts and forums in Delhi/New Delhi only)
Leave Your Comment