CJI Gavai makes a sarcastic jibe while denying restoration of Lord Vishnu’s idol in Khajuraho: Read 5 stark instances that exposes judiciary’s entrenched anti-Hindu bias

Judiciary is tasked with dispensing justice without bias; however, in India, the judiciary feels entitled to, at times, mock the faith of the Hindu majority. When petitioners from other religious communities approach courts with their grievances, they get justice. However, when Hindus move court in hopes of justice, they receive judicial activism, blame and outright mockery.

In a latest display of the blatant anti-Hindu prejudice of the judiciary, the Supreme Court of India mocked Lord Vishnu while dismissing a petition seeking restoration of a seven-foot mutilated idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari temple in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh. The idol, part of the UNESCO-protected Khajuraho group of monuments, had been beheaded centuries ago during the Mughal invasions, left desecrated and dishonoured ever since.

On 16^th September 2025, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih heard the matter.

The petitioner, a devotee named Rakesh Dalal, argued that restoring the idol was not merely about archaeology but about faith, dignity, and the fundamental right of Hindus to worship their deities in wholeness.

The devout Hindu petitioner must have believed that the apex court would either rule in his favour and direct the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and relevant authorities to repair the idol and revive the sanctity of the temple, or reject his plea citing relevant reasons. However, instead of simply telling the petitioner that the matter falls under the purview of the ASI as an archaeological conservation issue and not judicial intervention, CJI Gavai made unnecessary oral remarks against the Hindu faith by blending sarcasm and mockery.

“This is purely publicity interest litigation. 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 CJI told the petitioner.

Such is the state of affairs in a Hindu-majority secular India that a sitting judge, that too, the Chief Justice finds it right to throw sarcastic jibes at a devout Hindu and his faith in his God. CJI Gavai, who very casually said that “Go ask your God to do something about it”, would never have asked a Muslim petitioner who sought restoration of a mosque or Dargah, to go and ask Allah to rebuild it. Perhaps, CJI Gavai should answer that if he was on the five-judge bench that heard the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi land dispute case, would he have told the Muslim side that if you are such staunch devotees of Allah, go and ask Allah to rebuild Babri Masjid?

This episode of the judiciary resorting to dismissing a Hindu petitioner’s faith, trivialises centuries of historical desecration and the emotional wound of the ‘beheaded’ idol, came across as a shocker for Hindus. However, this incident is not isolated rather emblematic of a sinister pattern where Hindu religious sentiments are treated as expendable in judicial discourse.

While the judiciary is assigned the role of the protector of the constitutional right of freedom of religion, it has increasingly been demonstrating a subtle yet pervasive anti-Hindu bias. In the recent years, this percolation of anti-Hindu bias in the judicial system has become evident.

The judicial activism and interference in practice of Hindu religion began in 1954 with the Shirur Mutt case by paving way for state intervention in Hindu institutions, and it goes on even now, as seen in the Sabarimala verdict of 2018, invalidating the Hindu traditions. The courts have had a penchant for reformulating Hinduism and imposing a ‘rational’ form of it by distinguishing “sacred” from “secular”.

From deciding the height of Dahi-Handi to volume of DJ music systems in Hindu religious processions, Hindu traditions and beliefs have been subjected to persistent judicial scrutiny. After scrutinising, modernising and rationalising Hinduism, the courts laid bare their anti-Hindu bias open in recent years.

When the Supreme Court blamed Nupur Sharma for Muslim mob violence and vindicated ‘Sar tan se Juda’ brigade

Nothing exemplifies the judiciary’s anti-Hindu bias and tendency to pander to those empowered with street veto and political patronage, better than the Supreme Court’s oral observations on the Nupur Sharma case, where it held her singularly responsible for “setting the country on fire.”

In May 2022, then BJP spokesperson, Nupur Sharma was appearing as one of the panellists on the Time Now show along with Taslim Ahmed Rehmani on the Shivlinga found at the Gyanvapi disputed structure site. During the debate, Rehmani used derogatory language against Bhagwan Shiv that irked then-BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma. Sharma countered her and questioned how would he react if she used the same language for Islam and the Prophet.

Regardless of the fact that what Sharma said about the Prophet’s marriage to the 9-year-old Ayesha, which is mentioned in multiple Islamic hadiths, Nupur Sharma was branded as a ‘blasphemer’, with Islamic organisations openly declaring that she should be murdered. ‘Sar tan se juda’ calls were given by Islamists across the country. Islamists ran riots in several states; FIRs were filed not only against Sharma but also against those who supported her. In fact, Kanhaiya Lal, a Hindu tailor from Udaipur, Rajasthan, and Umesh Kolhe, a businessman from Maharashtra’s Amravati, were brutally murdered by Islamists for simply supporting Sharma.

In July 2022, when Nupur Sharma approached the Supreme Court for clubbing of the multiple FIRs filed against her, the two-judge bench that heard the matter seemed to have already formed an opinion against her based on the disinformation and misleading propaganda running in media and on social media. Justice Surya Kant, in his oral observations, blamed Nupur Sharma for what was happening in the country.

Blaming Nupur Sharma for the Islamist mob violence across the country as well as killing of Kanhaiyalal and Umesh Kolhe, for stating something even Muslim scholars and scriptures state, the Supreme Court judge had said, “You have ignited the whole country. You possess a loose tongue. Power has gone to your head. You should apologise to the nation.”

Who blatantly mocked Hindu religious sentiments? Tasleem Rehmani. Who quoted facts about Islamic prophet’s marriage as mentioned in the Islamic scriptures and often cited by Islamic scholars? Nupur Sharma. While genuine Hindu sentiments were hurt given Rehmani’s comments were deranged and devoid of scriptural accuracy, the Islamists were offended simply because a Hindu woman stated the facts mentioned in the Islamic text. Who unleashed mob violence and sar tan se juda calls? Islamists. Who killed Kanhaiyalal and Umesh Kolhe? Islamic Jihadis.

But for the apex court, somehow Nupur Sharma ignited the country. Forget rebuking rioting Muslims with similar aggression and intensity, the court did not even deem Tasleem Rehmani as the root cause of the matter, let alone reprimanding him. The court ignored the context and blamed Nupur Sharma, effectively vindicating Sar Tan Se Juda brigade running amok and calling for her beheading. The court’s approach in this case, not only validated Muslim mob violence but also ended up shifting culpability to the speaker rather than the perpetrators.

Compare this to the case of ‘comedian’ Munawar Faruqui, who during his stand-up performance in 2021, made outrageous remarks about Lord Ram and Goddess Sita. He was arrested after Hindus protested, however, Faruqui was eventually granted bail and was not subject to even half of what criticism Sharma received from the court. However, it seems that even if had Hindus also issued beheading threats and rioted across the country like Islamists did in Sharma’s case, the courts would have defended Faruqui and blamed Hindus for not tolerating a ‘joke’.

Haryana judge Fakhruddin incited Muslims to shoot Hindu adversaries

Back in 2019, a Haryana court judge, Fakhruddin while hearing a case which came up in his court, instigated Muslim petitioners against their Hindu adversaries by making hateful and violent comments against Hindus. During the hearing, the judge chided the witnesses by saying that they were a blot on the Muslim community for getting beaten up by members of the other (Hindu) community. Angered to see them been beaten up the judge questioned them as to why didn’t they shoot their adversaries (which in this case were Hindus).

Spewing acrimony at Hindus, the presiding judge, Fakhruddin asked the witnesses to bring a pistol when they come to the court next time.

Regarding Hindus, the judge said that they didn’t have any power in front of the Muslims. “You come with a pistol. I am here. I will take care of everything,” the judge said, sparking outrage.

This was not even a case of anti-Hindu bias but outright hatred for Hindus. A letter by the District Bar Association to the Punjab and Haryana High Court demanded his transfer. However, no significant action followed. Perhaps there is judicial impunity even when violence against Hindus is encouraged by a sitting judge.

Retired Supreme Court judge Rohinton Nariman labelled Hindus demanding temple as ‘dictators-tyrants’

In December 2024, former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Nariman criticized the 5-judge bench that delivered the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi verdict in 2019 and said that the verdict was nothing but a ‘mockery of justice’ that violated the basic principle of secularism.

Addressing an Ahmadi Foundation event, Nariman said, “We find today, like hydra heads popping up all over the country, there is suit after suit filed all over the place. Now not only concerning mosques but also dargahs. All this can lead to communal tension and disharmony, contrary to what is envisaged in both our Constitution and the Places of Worship Act. This very Constitution Bench spends five pages on it and says that in secularism, which is a part of the Basic Structure, you cannot look backwards, you have to look forward… Every religious place of worship is frozen until 15th August 1947. Now, anybody who tries to change this, those suits will stand dismissed.”

The former judge declared Hindus seeking legal remedy to reclaim their encroached and destroyed temples, as “hydra heads”. Law abiding Hindus seeking legal recourse were villainised by a former judge, the court delivering verdict in favour of the Hindu side based on evidence and merit was deemed ‘travesty of justice’ to Muslims, by the same judge.  Nariman advocated stringent implementation of the controversial Places of Worship Act, so that no more lawsuits seeking reclamation of their temples could be filed. His rhetoric suggested that to uphold ‘secularism’ Hindus should have abandoned their claim and remained silent.

Udhayanidhi Stalin called for eradicating Sanatan Dharma, Supreme Court stayed proceedings

Back in 2023, DMK leader and state minister in Tamil Nadu, Udhayanidhi Stalin, publicly gave calls for ‘eradication’ of Sanatan Dharma or Hinduism and equated it to “dengue and malaria”. Despite FIRs and nationwide outrage for slandering the religion of the Hindu community, the Supreme Court stayed fresh FIRs against him. While the Madras High Court deem Stalin’s anti-Hindu remarks against constitutional values, it dismissed petitions seeking quo warranto writs against him.

The Supreme Court also pulled up Stalin, saying that he is holding constitutional office and should not have made such remarks. However, Stalin was not subjected harsh critique was seen in the case of Nupur Sharma. Apparently, the reaction and extent to which the offended community goes to ensure punishment for the alleged offender decides the extent of anger and disapproval courts would express. The bias is evident.

Hindu practice of animal sacrifice (Bali) is dogmatic and non-essential, Islamic ‘Qurbani’ is not: Tripura HC one-sided quest to rid Hinduism of cruelty and superstition

Animal sacrifice in Shakti temples in Tripura is prohibited by the Tripura High Court, citing ‘cruelty’ and non-essentiality to devotion, but no such ban is imposed on animal sacrifice on Bakrid.  “Which religion or community mandates infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on an animal? Which religion prescribes that physical or mental pain or suffering should not be eliminated in the pre-slaughter stage? Which religion would want its followers not to treat animal with compassion, care or a humane approach?” the court asked back in 2019.

If the court actually wanted to end cruelty against animals, it would have banned slaughter of animals for food. It would have banned the practice of Halal slaughter, a certified Islamic manner of killing that involves torturing an animal to death. The courts never question this torturous Islamic tradition, but take delight in declaring Hindu tradition as ‘dogmatic’, ‘superstitious’ and whatnot. Perhaps, Hindu practice of ‘Bali’ amounts to cruelty but Islamic ‘Qurbani’ stands for compassion.

Conclusion

There are numerous examples of the Indian judiciary’s anti-Hindu bias. CJI B.R. Gavai’s “Go and ask Lord Vishnu to do something”, Justice Suryakant’s “Loose tongue” and “Singlehandedly ignited the country” victim-blaming remarks, judge Fakhruddin’s incitement against Hindus, to Rohinton Nariman’s labelling of Hindus as “hydra heads” for approaching courts to reclaim their temples, and the persistent scrutiny of Hindu beliefs and traditions mirror the entrenchment of the bias against India’s Hindu majority, in the judicial system. The law-abiding and peaceful Hindu community gets mockery when demanded Nyay (justice), while the often violent and perennially offended Islamists get Ati-Nyay (over-accommodation and pandering in the name of justice).