The Indian judiciary seems to be in a race to the bottom. Unlike the revered judges of yester years, in the 1960s to 1990s in particular, some of the judges have used obiter dicta to ridicule parties to the case or the Hindu community in general. Refusing to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) application to issue directions for the restoration and repair of the Lord Vishnu idol in Khajuraho, the division bench of Chief Justice of India CJI BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, labeled the PIL as Publicity Interest Litigation instead of Public Interest Litigation.
The application was filed by a devotee of Lord Vishnu Rakesh Dalal. The temple site is under the jurisdiction of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) which is responsible for the protection and restoration of monuments in India. Mr Dala had tried for years to have the beheaded 7 feet Vishnu idol repaired and its head restored which was destroyed by the Mughals but in vain.
Finally he had sought the apex court’s help.
During the hearing of the petition on Vishnu idol restoration, CJI Gavai reportedly remarked, “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”.
The bench rejected the plea, stating the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), not the Supreme Court.
Only this year on May 1, the same court passed an order on tree felling near the Taj Mahal, reiterating its 2015 directive that no tree felling is allowed within a 5-kilometre aerial radius of the Taj Mahal without the Court’s explicit permission.
Article 142 of the Constitution of India grants the Supreme Court the power to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. This broad power allows the Court to give directions to ASI for heritage conservation, protection, and management of protected monuments like the Khajuraho Temple, Taj Mahal and others.
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act) gives the ASI its responsibilities and statutory duties for conservation and management of ancient monuments and archaeological sites. From time to time, the Supreme Court has exercised its jurisdiction to enforce compliance with this Act by issuing directions to ASI and other agencies.
But this time, the apex court not only refused to entertain the PIL, it ridiculed the PIL as wells Hindu faith.
CJI BR Gavai’s and Justice Masih’s faith questioned
The remarks were quickly criticized on social media and by advocates, many of whom found them dismissive of Hindu sentiments and insensitive to issues of faith. CJI Gavai’s comments, by telling a petitioner to “ask the deity” and suggesting prayer as the remedy, have become a flashpoint for faith-based legal activism and broader debates about judicial sensitivity in India.
Some observers attributed the insensitive and ridiculing remarks to the two judges’ religion. It has been pointed out that CJI is a Buddhist and Justice Masih is a Christian, thus completely oblivious to Hindu sentiments.
Advocates Vineet Jindal and Satyam Singh Rajput formally urged CJI Gavai to withdraw the remarks, arguing that judicial discretion should not cause hurt to religious feelings or undermine constitutional secularism.
Commentators and Hindu groups alleged that the judiciary’s attitude reflected a lack of sensitivity toward Hindu concerns, especially when compared to responses to grievances from other communities.
One commentator reminded the “loose tongue” comment by a panelist on Indian TV. He questioned whether the CJI’s comments were the result of use of “loose tongue” also.
In another instance of “loose tongue”, former Supreme Court judge, Rohinton Nariman, when asked his thoughts on about judges seeking divine intervention in delivering judgements, referring indirectly to former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud’s controversial statement that he had prayed to God to find a solution to the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute which was decided by the Supreme Court in 2019.
Clearly using not so tight tongue, Justice Nariman compared it to bovine (resembling or relating to cattle) intervention.
“Whether with divine or bovine intervention or any other kind of intervention, if a judge delivers a judgment, he is violating his oath to the constitution…“ Justice Nariman said in response.
Justice Nariman is also not a Hindu. He is a Zoroastrian priest.
Clearly, the high standards held once upon a time by the apex court of India and its judges, are soon becoming a thing of the past and degenerating into pub banter.