Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai has clarified his recent comments made during the hearing concerning the restoration of a 7-foot beheaded idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari temple in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh. Responding to reactions on social media, the CJI stated in court, “I respect all religions.”

Earlier this week, while hearing the matter with Justice Vinod Chandran, the bench was informed that the idol was damaged during the Mughal invasions. Refusing relief, CJI Gavai had remarked: “Go and ask the deity now. You say you are a staunch devotee of Lord Vishnu, so go and pray now.” The observation triggered sharp criticism online, with many alleging disrespect towards Hindu sentiments.

On Wednesday, CJI Gavai acknowledged the backlash, saying, “Someone told me my comments have been portrayed on social media... I respect all religions.” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the Chief Justice, observing that social media often distorts context: “Every action has an equal reaction, but now every action has a disproportionate social media reaction.”

The petition filed by Rakesh Dalal sought restoration of the idol, claiming repeated requests to the government were ignored. However, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) had clarified that conservation rules prohibit replacing mutilated idols, and the Supreme Court endorsed this position.

Meanwhile, Advocate Vineet Jindal formally urged the CJI to reconsider his remarks, stating that such observations, even if not part of the judicial record, caused anguish among millions of Hindu devotees. He emphasized that faith is protected under Article 25 of the Constitution and deserves respect from the judiciary.

The controversy reflects a recurring pattern: judicial observations on matters of faith often overshadow the legal reasoning of judgments. From Sabarimala and Ram Janmabhoomi to the Karnataka hijab case, off-the-cuff remarks have sparked nationwide debates, sometimes eclipsing the constitutional principles at stake.

In the Khajuraho matter, the law was clear—reconstruction of the idol was barred. Yet, one rhetorical comment diverted attention from the legal basis of the ruling. This episode highlights the challenge courts face in balancing faith and law: ensuring that constitutional clarity is not lost amid provocative words and public reactions.