A recent remark by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai during a hearing regarding the restoration of a damaged Lord Vishnu idol has ignited a nationwide controversy. The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by advocate Rakesh Dalal, seeking the restoration of a seven-foot-tall idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari Temple, part of the Khajuraho temple complex, a UNESCO World Heritage Site in Madhya Pradesh.

Dalal argued that the idol, which he claimed was damaged during the Mughal invasions, had not been restored despite repeated appeals to authorities. He contended that the restoration was not merely an archaeological concern but a matter of faith, and the authorities' inaction infringed upon the fundamental right to worship of devotees.

However, a bench led by CJI Gavai dismissed the plea, stating that the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). It was during this dismissal that CJI Gavai made the remark that has since drawn widespread criticism. Addressing the petitioner, he said, "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's statement has been perceived by some as insensitive and has sparked a significant backlash, particularly on social media. Many users have expressed outrage, with some even calling for the CJI's impeachment, claiming that the remarks hurt religious sentiments. Advocates have also voiced their concerns, with some writing to CJI Gavai and the President of India, urging the CJI to withdraw his statement to ensure the dignity of every faith is preserved. One lawyer, Satyam Singh Rajput, wrote an open letter to CJI Gavai, urging him to issue a clarification. Rajput stated that as a devoted follower of Lord Vishnu, he was personally shocked by the remarks.

The controversy has also drawn attention to the legal aspects of the case. The court held that the matter lies within the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India, and that ASI rules do not permit reconstruction beyond conservation. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, protects heritage monuments like the Khajuraho temples and only permits repair and preservation, expressly disallowing the reconstruction of lost or destroyed portions.

The Ministry of Culture had previously informed the petitioner in May 2020 that the Khajuraho temples were in good condition and that reconstruction was against conservation rules. Despite this, the petitioner continued to press for the idol's restoration, leading the court to label the petition as a "publicity interest litigation".

The incident has ignited a debate about judicial sensitivity, the role of faith in legal matters, and the balance between preserving cultural heritage and respecting religious sentiments. While the legal outcome was likely predetermined by existing laws and regulations, the CJI's remark has shifted the focus to questions of judicial conduct and the need for respectful dialogue in court proceedings. Some observers have cautioned against reducing complex legal hearings to soundbites that inflame passions rather than inform the public. They emphasize the importance of maintaining clarity of law amidst the noise of words, particularly in a diverse society where faith and law inevitably intersect.