The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a petition seeking the reconstruction or rejuvenation of a dilapidated idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari Temple in the Khajuraho Temple complex in Madhya Pradesh. The bench, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, refused to entertain the plea, deeming it a "Publicity Interest Litigation".

During the hearing on September 16, 2025, the Chief Justice remarked, "This is purely publicity interest litigation… Go and ask the deity himself to do something. If you are saying that you are a strong devotee of Lord Vishnu, then you pray and do some meditation". The petitioner's counsel had presented photographs of the 7-foot tall idol, emphasizing that the head was significantly damaged and in need of reconstruction.

However, the Chief Justice pointed out that the Khajuraho Temple is under the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). He raised concerns about whether the ASI would permit such reconstruction, considering it an archaeological find. The bench further suggested that if the petitioner was not averse to Shaivism, they could worship the large Shiva linga present in Khajuraho.

The petition had sought directives for the "replacement/ reconstruction/ rejuvenation of the idol of the Lord Vishnu and install/ consecrate the same at the Javeri temple, Khajuraho, Chhatarpur District, Madhya Pradesh in place of the headless 7-foot-long Idol of Lord Vishnu". The plea also stated that representations had been made to the Union Home Minister and the ASI. The ASI responded that the conservation of the Khajuraho temples is their responsibility and that replacing the idol would violate conservation rules.

The Khajuraho Group of Monuments is a UNESCO World Heritage site, known for its intricate sculptures and architectural symbolism. The Javari Temple, where the idol is located, is part of this complex. The Supreme Court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to archaeological conservation rules and respecting the ASI's jurisdiction over such sites. The court's dismissal reflects a cautious approach towards intervening in matters concerning ancient monuments and religious artifacts, particularly when conservation issues are involved.