CJI Gavai’s “Ask Your Deity” Remark & The Erosion of Judicial Dignity

This article is written jointly with J Shanmukha

Must a Chief Justice stoop to mockery when faced with a plea of faith? What happens when constitutional dignity is sacrificed for sarcasm, especially toward the faith of the majority?

The Incident: What Really Happened

On September 16, 2025, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai rejected a plea to restore a seven-foot Lord Vishnu idol at the Javari Temple in Khajuraho, part of the UNESCO World Heritage complex. The petition, filed by Rakesh Dalal, argued that the idol had been damaged for decades and that its restoration was necessary — not only for archaeological reasons, but for the fundamental right to worship. 

During the hearing, Chief Justice Gavai responded:

“This is purely publicity interest litigation. Go and ask the deity himself to do something now. You say you are a staunch devotee of Lord Vishnu. So go and pray now.”

He further noted that restoring the idol was under the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), not directly the Court. 

Soon after, backlash erupted across legal, political, and social media spheres. Many felt that the remark was dismissive, insensitive, and unbecoming of someone holding the highest judicial office. CJI Gavai later clarified that he respects all religions. 

Why the Comment Is Unbecoming of the Office

1.    Constitutional Values Demand Respect

Judicial office is not just about legal reasoning; it carries symbolic weight. India’s Constitution treats all religions with equal respect (Article 25, Article 51A(g)), and the judiciary is expected to uphold this ideal. A Chief Justice making a remark that comes across as mocking devotion puts that ideal at risk. When a person comes with faith, the role of justice demands dignity, not derision.

2.    The Majority Community Must Not Be Marginalized in Speech

India is diverse — but Hindus are the majority community. When remarks are made that seem to trivialize majoritarian religious sentiment, it stokes hurt, alienation, and distrust. If similar remarks were made about minority faiths, there would be national uproar. Should there be double standards? No. Justice must be blind to faith, not blind to its own duty to respect.

3.    The Dignity of the Office Carries Weight

The Chief Justice is not merely a man in robes. He is a symbol of justice. His words have weight. A remark that delegates action to prayer in response to a legal plea demeans the legal system, reduces the petition to spiritual fantasy rather than a constitutional claim, and undermines confidence in courts.

4.    Silencing via Sarcasm is Not Justice

The petitioner’s plea asked for restoration, arguing failure of authorities to act. The Court’s response — “go ask your deity” — effectively shuts down the plea not on legal merits but on tone. That is a subtle way of marginalizing concerns that matter deeply to believers. It is legalism without justice, procedure over substance.

How Should the Judiciary Have Responded?

• Acknowledge the petitioner’s faith and grievances with respect.
• Examine legal jurisdiction: Yes, the ASI may have a role. But legal systems often act on requests when faith and constitutional duty are implicated.
• Avoid humor or sarcasm in matters of devotion — they do not belong in judicial adjudication.
• Provide clarity on legal reasoning: why the Court cannot intervene, exactly which statute or precedent prohibits restoration, and how the petitioner might address authorities (ASI, state government) to move forward.

Faith, Dignity & the Judiciary: Constitutional Duty Vs Judicial Remark

Why an Apology is Not Optional

An apology from the Chief Justice would not be about admitting being wrong in law—but about acknowledging sentiment, preserving dignity, and reaffirming constitutional respect. It would signal that the bench does not conflate public duty with public ridicule. Without it, belief in judicial neutrality suffers.

Final Thought

Can a judiciary that dismisses faith with a jest still claim the moral high ground? When a petitioner seeks restoration of an idol, it is not theatrics — it is faith speaking legally. If a Chief Justice can dismiss that with “go and pray,” can millions of believers consider themselves equal citizens under law?

In the end, it’s not about whether the idol is restored — it’s about whether the office that spoke such words retains its dignity.

Justice must never mock faith. The Constitution demands dignity, not derision. A public apology is owed to restore confidence and respect.

Will Chief Justice Gavai muster the humility that the office demands, offer an apology, and restore not just the idol — but faith in justice?