Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai has recently found himself at the center of both praise and criticism for two major reasons — the so-called “bulldozer judgment” that seeks to regulate the demolition of illegal structures, and his controversial remark in the Supreme Court regarding a petition involving an idol of Lord Vishnu. While his intent may stem from constitutional values and procedural justice, the delivery, tone, and broader implications of these actions invite scrutiny.
The Supreme Court bench led by CJI Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan issued a judgment hailed by many as a step toward safeguarding human rights, especially in the face of aggressive state action where demolitions were being used punitively — often targeting individuals or communities under the guise of law enforcement. The judgment emphasized that no home or property should be demolished without due process, prior notice, and legal justification.
However, critics argue that this ruling, while noble in spirit, may blur the lines between judicial and executive authority. Nationwide guidelines issued by the judiciary can unintentionally encroach upon state powers, risking constitutional overreach. Furthermore, such rulings are only as strong as their enforcement. In a country where municipal authorities often act with impunity, and where political motivations guide enforcement, the real-world impact of the judgment remains uncertain.
Additionally, expressing “immense satisfaction” about the judgment raises questions about judicial objectivity. While personal pride in upholding rights is understandable, public statements that highlight emotional fulfillment in one’s rulings can blur the necessary detachment expected from the highest judicial office.
More controversial was CJI Gavai’s recent remark during a court hearing regarding a petition on the restoration or relocation of a Lord Vishnu idol at a heritage site. In response to the petitioner’s request, the Chief Justice reportedly quipped that the petitioner should “ask the deity himself” — a comment that quickly went viral and triggered backlash across social media, especially from members of the Hindu community.
While the legal basis of the court’s position may be defensible — such cases often intersect with ASI regulations and heritage laws — the **tone** of the statement was widely perceived as flippant, irreverent, and dismissive of religious sentiment. In a pluralistic society like India, where faith plays a significant role in daily life, such remarks from the apex court risk alienating sections of the population and undermining trust in judicial neutrality.
A judge may not intend disrespect, but perception often matters more than intent. High-ranking judges, particularly the Chief Justice of India, must maintain both the substance and **appearance** of impartiality and respect. A more carefully worded response could have upheld legal principles without hurting religious feelings.
CJI Gavai’s comments, both in praise of his own judgment and in open court regarding religious faith, raise concerns about judicial tone, boundaries, and sensitivity. India’s judiciary must walk a fine line: upholding secular, constitutional principles while remaining respectful of its citizens’ deeply held beliefs.Legal correctness must be accompanied by ethical communication, particularly when dealing with faith, identity, and fundamental rights. The judiciary is not merely an interpreter of laws; it is a custodian of public confidence. That confidence is eroded when remarks — even unintended — appear to mock or marginalize particular communities.
Chief Justice Gavai’s career reflects significant legal experience and a commitment to constitutional values. However, leadership in the judiciary also requires emotional intelligence and cultural literacy. In moments of national attention — whether on bulldozer politics or sacred idols — the court’s words matter just as much as its verdicts. The need for judicial restraint, humility, and cultural awareness is more vital than ever.