Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai's remarks during a hearing regarding the restoration of a damaged Lord Vishnu idol at the Javari temple in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh, have sparked a significant controversy. The Supreme Court bench, led by CJI Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, declined to entertain a petition seeking the restoration of the idol, stating that the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

During the hearing, CJI Gavai reportedly told the petitioner, Rakesh Dalal, "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". Dalal's petition claimed that the idol was damaged during Mughal invasions and had remained unrestored despite appeals to authorities, infringing on devotees' fundamental right to worship.

The CJI's remarks have drawn criticism, with some accusing him of insensitivity towards Hindu sentiments. Social media users and legal experts have expressed concern that the comments trivialized the petitioner's faith and undermined the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. Advocate Vineet Jindal and Satyam Singh Rajput have written to CJI Gavai, urging him to retract his remarks in order to maintain national religious harmony and the dignity of the Supreme Court. Jindal stated that the remarks were "deeply inappropriate, insensitive, and disrespectful to the faith of countless followers". Rajput echoed this sentiment, stating that the remarks had "deeply hurt the religious sentiments of millions of Hindu devotees across the nation".

The controversy has ignited a debate about judicial restraint, constitutional secularism, and the importance of sensitivity towards religious faith. Some argue that the CJI's comments were unnecessary and that the court could have simply stated that the matter fell under the purview of the ASI. Others contend that the remarks reflect a broader issue of judicial bias against the Hindu faith.

In response to the controversy, some individuals have called for the impeachment of the CJI. However, others have defended the CJI's remarks, arguing that the court's decision was legally sound and that the controversy is a result of misinterpreting the CJI's intentions.

The court clarified that worshippers are free to pray at other temples but refused to alter a centuries-old artifact in a protected heritage site. The ASI's conservation rules do not permit reconstruction beyond conservation. The Ministry of Culture had previously informed the petitioner that reconstruction of temples is against conservation rules.

This incident underscores the delicate balance that Indian courts must maintain when dealing with issues involving faith, history, and law. It also highlights the importance of judicial conduct and the need for judges to be mindful of how their words may be perceived by the public.