If Hindus must “go to Bhagwan Vishnu” for everything, then what is the point of India’s courts, its Constitution, and its elaborate administrative machinery? Why maintain a judiciary if justice is to be mocked in the name of faith? Perhaps India should first declare itself a Hindu Rashtra, and then Hindus will know that for every grievance, they must bypass the Supreme Court and go straight to Bhagwan Vishnu for answers. On September 16, 2025, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed a petition seeking restoration of a mutilated seven-foot idol of Lord Vishnu in Khajuraho’s UNESCO-protected Javari temple. The idol was desecrated centuries ago during the Mughal invasions. A devotee, Rakesh Dalal, approached the Court not only for archaeology but for faith and dignity. He expected justice. What he received instead was ridicule.
“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 B.R. Gavai said. This was not judicial restraint. It was judicial mockery. And it reveals a disturbing pattern: when Hindu petitioners approach the court, they are often dismissed with sarcasm or lectures. When other communities go to court, their grievances are treated with seriousness and sensitivity.
This is not the first instance of such prejudice. Recall June 2022, when a vacation bench of Justices Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala rebuked former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma after she quoted Islamic scripture in response to repeated mocking of Shivling on a TV debate. The Court declared that Sharma’s “loose tongue has set the entire country on fire.” Ironically, mobs were rioting not because of her words, but because of their own violent response to criticism. Yet the Court chose to put the blame squarely on a Hindu woman, effectively justifying the violence that followed.
If Nupur Sharma’s “loose tongue” set the nation on fire, then by the same measure, is B.R. Gavai’s tongue not setting faith itself ablaze? Should we say to the CJI what he said to her that his reckless words undermine harmony and inflame sentiments? The judiciary that scolded Nupur Sharma for speaking is the same judiciary that now ridicules a Hindu devotee for seeking respect for his God.
The remark, “go ask your God to do something” echoes with historical insult. In Hindu tradition, we recall how the tyrant king Hiranyakashyap mocked his son Prahlad’s devotion to Vishnu: “Go and ask your Vishnu to save you.” We all know how that ended with the Lord appearing as Narasimha and destroying the arrogant king. The lesson was clear: mocking faith has consequences. Has the judiciary forgotten this story from our civilisational memory?
If the petitioner had been a Muslim asking for the restoration of a mosque or a dargah, would the CJI B.R. Gavai have dared to say: “Go and ask Allah to rebuild it”? If a Christian had pleaded for the repair of a church statue, would he have replied: “Go and ask Jesus to do something”? The answer is obvious. Only Hindu faith is considered fair game for sarcasm.
The idol of Lord Vishnu at Khajuraho was desecrated centuries ago by invaders. For Hindus, it is not merely a stone image. It carries centuries of pain, humiliation, and resilience. To restore it is not to alter history, but to heal a wound. The Archaeological Survey of India may view it as “conservation,” but for devotees, it is about dignity. By mocking this demand, the Supreme Court trivialises both history and faith. What does this tell Hindus? That they cannot expect empathy from the very institution meant to dispense justice. That the pain of centuries can be brushed aside with a casual quip. That their devotion is a punchline in the highest court of the land.
This episode should alarm every Indian who values equality before the law. The judiciary is not above scrutiny. When judges openly mock the faith of the majority, they erode their own credibility. They reveal bias, and bias corrodes justice. It is time to ask: are Indian courts becoming selectively secular? Why do Hindu petitioners face scorn, while others find protection? Why must Hindu devotees be told to go to their God instead of getting justice from their courts?
Today it is Lord Vishnu. Tomorrow it could be Lord Ram, Lord Shiva, or Goddess Durga. If mocking Hindu faith becomes routine in the judiciary, it sets a precedent that will embolden those outside the courts to do the same. It delegitimises Hindu devotion in public life. It signals to the majority that their pain does not matter. The judiciary must be reminded: it exists not to ridicule faith, but to uphold justice. And justice, in a secular democracy, cannot mean mocking one community while bending over backwards for another.
CJI Gavai’s remarks are not a throwaway line. They are symptomatic of a deeper problem—a judiciary that has lost sight of its duty to dispense justice without prejudice. If the highest court treats Hindu faith with sarcasm, then what hope is left for ordinary devotees? The judiciary must ask itself: does it want to be remembered as the guardian of justice, or as an institution that mocked the faith of the people it was meant to serve? For now, many Hindus will remember September 16 not as a date of justice denied, but as a day when the Supreme Court itself insulted their God. And history has shown from the tale of Hiranyakashyap to the struggle for Ram Janmabhoomi that mocking Vishnu, mocking Ram, mocking the faith of Hindus, never ends well for those who do it.
