The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a plea seeking the restoration of a Lord Vishnu idol at the Javari Temple, a part of the Khajuraho temple complex, a UNESCO World Heritage site in Madhya Pradesh. The decision was delivered on Tuesday by a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.
The petition was filed by Rakesh Dalal, who sought directives for the replacement and reinstallation of the damaged seven-foot idol at the Javari Temple in the Chhatarpur district. Dalal's counsel argued that the idol's head was dilapidated and requested the court's intervention to allow its reconstruction. The petitioner claimed that numerous appeals had been made to the central home ministry and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), but no action had been taken. Dalal further informed the court that the Superintending Archaeologist responded that the responsibility for conserving the Khajuraho temples lies with the ASI, and replacing the beheaded idol would violate conservation rules.
The Supreme Court, however, refused to entertain the plea, with CJI Gavai stating, "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 bench clarified that the issue fell under the jurisdiction of the ASI, which is responsible for archaeological sites. The CJI added, "It's an archaeological find, whether the ASI would permit such a thing to be done or not… There are various issues". He further suggested, "In the meantime, if you are not averse to Shaivism, you can go and worship there… There is a very big linga of Shiva, one of the biggest in Khajuraho".
The court's decision has sparked debate and controversy. Some critics have accused CJI Gavai of insensitivity towards Hindu sentiments. Conversely, legal experts have pointed out that the ASI is the appropriate authority to decide on archaeological restoration. The case has reignited discussions about judicial restraint, constitutional secularism, and the importance of sensitivity towards religious faith.
Dalal argued that the refusal to restore the idol violated devotees' fundamental right to worship under Article 25 of the Constitution. He highlighted unanswered protests, memoranda, and campaigns regarding the temple. The petition sought directions for the replacement, reconstruction, and consecration of the idol.
The Supreme Court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to established legal and administrative frameworks, particularly when dealing with matters of archaeological significance and religious sentiments. While the court acknowledged the petitioner's devotion, it emphasized the need to respect the ASI's expertise and authority in preserving and managing historical sites.
