Recently, the Bharatiya judiciary found itself at the center of controversy following two notable incidents that have reignited the discourse on the respect and sensitivity the judicial system must extend towards Hindu dharma and society. The first was when Rakesh Kishore reportedly attacked Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, an incident which symbolically underscores the underlying tensions between Hindu sentiments and the judiciary’s approach. On another front, Ajeet Bharti was allegedly detained, questioned, and released merely for making a comment perceived as critical of the judiciary, evoking concerns about the curbing of freedom of speech and the toleration of dissent in the democratic fabric of Bharat.
These incidents frame a larger narrative that today’s judiciary faces—balancing constitutional duties and judicial temper with the sensitivities of the majority Hindu populace, whose civilization and religion form the bedrock of Bharatiya culture.
Judicial Remarks and Orders Affecting Hindu Sentiments
The judiciary has issued several statements and rulings that have, at times, been seen as insensitive to Hindu religious sentiments, causing concern among many in the Hindu community. These actions often dismiss pleas aimed at protecting Hindu symbols and beliefs, sometimes advising petitioners to not be “so sensitive.”
Notable Judicial Incidents:
- The Supreme Court bench of CJI B.R. Gavai dismissed a plea to restore a beheaded 7-foot Lord Vishnu idol at Khajuraho’s Javari temple, remarking to “go and ask the deity to do something now,” which was widely criticized for hurting Hindu sentiments.
- The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a plea to remove the Shivling image from Baidyanath Ayurveda’s logo, scolding the petitioner for being overly sensitive.
- The Bombay High Court rebuked a plea against derogatory remarks during Holi, stressing the court should not burden itself with such petitions.
Various dismissals of pleas against remarks or artistic expressions deemed offensive to Hindu beliefs, with judicial advice often implying a need for greater tolerance or humor regarding perceived insults. Courts have dismissed allegations against prominent figures making controversial remarks about Hindu figures or beliefs, often citing legal technicalities or lack of maintaining prior permissions.
Judiciary’s Impact on Hindu Festivals and Traditions
The Bharatiya judiciary has, over time, adjudicated on multiple cases relating to Hindu festivals and traditions, often prioritizing concerns such as environmental protection, public health, and law and order over religious practices. Many of these decisions impose restrictions that affect the practice or scale of traditional Hindu festivities.
Key Judicial Interventions:
- The Odisha High Court ordered controls on noise pollution during Durga Puja, emphasizing public health and mental peace.
- The Bombay High Court deferred decisions on Ganpati idol immersions citing environmental concerns, leading to restrictions in natural water bodies.
- The Supreme Court upheld bans on Rath Yatra celebrations outside Puri due to COVID-19 concerns.
- Restrictions on Kanwar Yatra during the pandemic, citing the Right to Life as a paramount concern.
- Bans and regulations imposed on firecrackers during Diwali and similar festivals for environmental reasons.
- Orders banning or restricting the use of Plaster of Paris idols to prevent water pollution.
- Legal limits placed on pyramid heights during Dahi Handi festivals to prevent injuries.
Judicial Statements and Verdicts on Hindu Processions
In the context of Hindu processions, the judiciary has delivered mixed verdicts—sometimes supporting the uninterrupted conduct of religious processions while also imposing controls to maintain public order.
Examples of Judgments:
- Orissa High Court dismissed pleas seeking to restrict Hanuman Jayanti processions, emphasizing tolerance and the state’s responsibility to maintain peace.
- Allahabad High Court dismissed a PIL seeking removal of loudspeakers at Mahakumbh Mela due to insufficient evidence of harmful noise pollution.
- Supreme Court stayed orders limiting traditional Dhol-Tasha performers during Ganesh Visarjan, recognizing the cultural significance.
- Calcutta High Court allowed traditional Ram Navami processions, with some restrictions on participant numbers and slogans to prevent communal tension.
- Certain courts, however, have denied permissions, such as the Bombay High Court refusing relief for Ganpati immersion at environmentally sensitive locations.
Judiciary’s Rejection of Pleas Over Hurt Hindu Sentiments
Frequently, the judiciary dismisses pleas relating to the hurt sentiments of Hindus with advice suggesting greater tolerance and discouraging sensitivity.
Prominent Examples:
- Punjab and Haryana High Court asked why petitioners were “so sensitive” when seeking removal of religious symbols from logos.
- Bombay High Court emphasized tolerance and humor in cases alleging hurt Hindu sentiments, including rebuking cases against popular songs or social media posts.
- Supreme Court dismissed pleas against films like “Adipurush” and “PK” citing freedom of expression and advising petitioners to avoid watching if offended.
- Madras High Court upheld religious tolerance, emphasizing it as a core tenet of Hindu dharma itself.
Summary: Upholding Respect for Hindu Dharma in Bharat
Bharat is both the birthplace and enduring home of the perennial Hindu civilization, a culture and faith system that has shaped the social, spiritual, and cultural landscape of the nation for millennia. While the judiciary must uphold the Constitution and ensure justice and fairness to all, it must also acknowledge the deep historical and civilizational roots of Hindu dharma. Neither should the courts appear dismissive of Hindu beliefs nor treat the sincere sentiments of the Hindu majority with cavalier indifference.
Respecting Hindu dharma is not about compromising constitutional values—it is about integrating empathy and understanding into judicial reasoning, giving equal dignity to the religion that nurtured Bharat’s soul. Defending Hindu civilization is not a matter of shame but a noble responsibility when the country’s courts stand as guardians of justice.
The judiciary should strive to balance its duties with a nuanced appreciation of Bharat’s cultural identity, fostering harmony by respecting the beliefs and traditions of its foundational civilization.
This piece has aimed to carefully reflect the tensions and hopes for a judiciary that honors both secular justice and the spiritual heart of Bharat’s majority community.
Sources:
- 12 Judicial Orders and Remarks That Hurt Hindu Sentiments and Dismissed Petitions (2014-2025)
- 12 Instances Where Judicial Rulings Affected Hindu Festivals and Traditions
- 13 Incidents : Judiciary Statement/Verdict on Hindu processions
- 8 Cases When Judiciary Rejected Pleas Over Hurting Hindu Sentiments, Advising Hindus Not To Be “So Sensitive” (2014 to 2025)
Regardless of the nuances one introduces to mitigate the blatant insensitivity which the courts exhibit over hindu-related issues, and irrespective of the tortuous course which the current shoe-throwing controversy takes, what appears clear as daylight is that :
The CJI’s mocking remarks on Lord Vishnu has unleashed the first stirrings of unforeseen consequences which, taken together, constitute the growling drumbeats of genocidal catcalls waiting to be transformed into the grammar of a civil bloodbath.
Historical JNU slogans like BRAHMIN BANIA BHARAT CHHODO can be seen searching for killing fields with open calls for Brahmin genocide in BJP-ruled Bihar on the cusp of assembly elections; Supreme Court lawyers, advocates and elements from within the Bar Council of India issue blood-curling threats to hound Brahmins in all corners of India, skin them alive, place dog-collars and parade them in the streets ; A Twitter handle urges youth, especially in the age group of 18-20 years to weaponise the SC/ST Atrocity Act against fellow Hindu students with impunity without allowing moral compunctions to stay their hands; another Advocate declares a bounty on Hindus, while another asks Hindus to be grateful to SC/ST/OBC’s for being alive.
And these are only a random sampling from among hundreds of such instances where even a community-level mobilization can be witnessed as children, youth and the elderly join a blood-thirsty chorus that will only intensify in the coming days.
Within hours of the incident, known provocateurs like Indira Jaisingh, Prashant Bhushan and Rajdeep Sardesai began giving it a caste angle. Thereafter the propaganda machinery worked at a relentless pace, disregarding the fact that the person at the centre of controversy, Rakesh Kishore, admitted in an interview that he was a Dalit Hindu, unlike the CJI who he said was a Buddhist masquerading and making the most by passing himself off as a Dalit.
With the Muslims already on the streets, and gaining in numbers and ferocity, what better way to unleash an uprising if not by mobilizing the second most restive and violently volatile minority in India than the Dalits and other caste groups.
One has to only recount the savage passions unleashed among the OBC and Maratha communities in the hinterlands of Maharashtra over Reservations to understand the cyclonic effects of a Caste War on an All-India level.
If it’s a do and die situation, the Hindus must gird their loins by uniting and mounting a challenge that will serve as a true Shraddhanjali to the millions of our forefathers who were put to the sword down the centuries.
The interpretation of the remark made by CJI B.R. Gavai viz “Go and ask the deity itself to do something.” as I see it is that some “devout” Hindu claim that Bhagwan Vishnu asked them to do blah…blah…blah and then Hindus should come out on streets “to set the nation on fire” ( to fulfill Bhagwan Vishnu’s command) which judiciary sees as legitimate response to a challenge. Instead of doing that we put high value on Justice Gavai’s utterance and thus put him on a pedestal.