Poonam Sharma
India’s judiciary often proclaims itself the custodian of constitutional morality. Yet, controversies like Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s remarks on religious rituals or now CJI D.Y. Gavai’s recent quip about Lord Vishnu show a worrying pattern: an apparent casualness in addressing symbols and sentiments central to Hindu civilisation.
The most recent flashpoint came when, in the course of a court exchange, CJI Gavai was said to have told a petitioner who claimed to be a devotee of Lord Vishnu that he should pray to the deity if he really believed in him. While perhaps intended as humor or throwaway riposte, the comment ignited social media outrage and from groups like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), reminding the nation’s highest court judge to practice restraint and deference.
A Pattern of Judicial Irreverence
This episode is not unique. In the recent decades, courts have intruded into temple custom, priestly tradition and Hindu festivals — sometimes in the cause of ecology, sometimes in the cause of reform. Judicial review of discriminatory or illegal practices is certainly proper, but the tone and language employed in some judgments or spoken words have occasionally slipped into condescension instead of considered criticism.
For example, courts have been asked to decide if temple entry can be limited under custom, if priests should be appointed, if animal sacrifice can be banned, and if religious processions are possible. Most of these interventions are doubtless well-intentioned but also represent an imposition of a secular state’s gaze as superior to that of a very old religious order. At the same time, the same judiciary is exceedingly reluctant to intervene with minority religious practices, referring to the necessity for sensitivity.
The Unequal Lens
This double standard — strict scrutiny for Hindu customs, soft-pedalling for others — creates the perception of bias. The CJI’s comment on Lord Vishnu may seem trivial, but to devotees it reinforces a sense of disrespect. Courts do not have to endorse religious claims, but they are expected to uphold dignity and neutrality. Mocking or belittling expressions of faith undermines public trust.
The judiciary also possesses extraordinary powers of contempt. Citizens expressing criticism of judicial utterances risk being brought up, punished or even imprisoned. However, judges’ own words in open court go unchallenged, even if they stray across the propriety line. This asymmetry contributes to public exasperation: common people have to self-censor, but some judges can make offhand or culturally charged comments.
Historical Amnesia about Sanatan Civilisation
Sanatan Dharma’s survival is in its pluralism and flexibility, yes, but also in the respect paid to its gods, symbols and rituals. Courts, being organs of a civilisation-state, cannot disregard that. The Indian Constitution may make secularism its bedrock, but secularism is not scorn of the majority’s faith. Indeed, the Supreme Court has itself characterized secularism as “equal respect” for all religions. Equal respect must be convertible into equal restraint.
Further, Hindu sacred notions — of Vishnu, Shiva, Devi or one of the innumerable local gods — are not personal beliefs but shared cultural heritage. To dismiss them in public court with a dismissive remark amounts to cultural illiteracy at the helm.
The Way Forward: Judicial Temperance
To gain back public trust, three steps are necessary:
Formal Sensitisation
Judicial education needs to comprise civilisational and cultural literacy regarding India’s majority mores and minority religions. Far from indoctrination, this involves an understanding of how symbols, rituals and stories work in society.
Rules for Courtroom Speech
As lawyers are governed by codes of behaviour, judges likewise require internal norms regarding humour, sarcasm or comment that can hurt religious feelings. Spoken words should embody dignity, neutrality and restraint.
Clear Redress Mechanisms
When judicial discourse goes overboard, there must be a non-punitive but transparent forum — perhaps under the Judicial Accountability Bill or a domestic ethics committee — where complaints can be heard without jeopardizing judicial independence.
A Broader Civilisational Reckoning
The Vishnu remark controversy is not really about one judge but an elite institutional culture that frequently views Hindu customs as exotic or old-fashioned. It has its roots in colonialism when British courts legalized “Hindu law” on terms foreign to native practice. After Independence, even constitutional equality failed to erase the asymmetry – visible in the way temple administration was usurped by state governments while churches and mosques continued their autonomy.
Such structural prejudice is little discussed in mainstream media but has a deep impact on the way ordinary Hindus think about the judiciary. Perceived to be “spoken down to” by judges, alienation and distrust are generated — just the opposite of what a constitutional court should foster.
Conclusion: Respect Builds Legitimacy
Chief Justice Gavai’s clarification may calm tempers for now, but unless the judiciary confronts its own internal biases, such flare-ups will recur. Respect for Sanatan culture does not diminish the Court’s authority; rather, it enhances it by rooting constitutional morality in civilisational continuity.
In a democracy in which public life and faith are so closely interconnected, there is a special responsibility for judges. They are not only to be arbiters of law but also of cultural sensitivity. The difference between secular adjudication and cultural disdain is thin but essential. The long-term legitimacy of the judiciary will be determined by remaining on the correct side of that divide.
