Selective Trolling of CJI Gavai's 'Deity' Remark Reveals Perils of Divine Banter

A Buddhist by faith, Gavai had entered the office of the judiciary by taking oath in the name of God.

The situation today is so volatile that even in a lighter vein, one cannot afford to crack jokes. Every statement is taken to an extreme, and the authors of such light banters are taken to task.

(Image courtesy: Supreme Court of India website, altered by The Quint)

Chief Justice BR Gavai, in one of his off the cuff remarks made in open court, got himself into trouble. While rejecting the request of one Rakesh Dalal, a litigant who prayed that a statue of Vishnu built by Chadravanshi Kings at Javari Temple in Madhya Pradesh was mutilated during the Mughal invasion and despite several representations to the government, the same has not been repaired and restored, made the following remark:

“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. It’s an archaeological site and ASI needs to give permission etc. Sorry.” 

Chief Justice BR Gavai

Perhaps the rejection of a petition seeking for repair and restoration of an idol found in mutilated state is an issue to be dealt with Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the court can do very little in such a matter since judicial review is beyond the scope of the courts.

However, in matters of this nature, any utterance, even jovial, may not go down well with the litigant and beyond him, the energised social media.

Justice Gavai understood with great difficulty the impact of the intense trolling he has been facing for his views since remarks were reported,

Otherwise a strong believer, though of the Buddhist order, he even entered the office of the judiciary by taking oath in the name of God.

He later had to make a public expression of remorse, stating that his remarks in the matter concerning the restoration of a Vishnu idol in Khajuraho had been misrepresented on social media. He was also apparently forewarned, and claimed, “Someone told me the other day that the comments I made have been portrayed in social media in a certain manner…I respect all religions”. 

Social Media’s Disproportionate Reaction

The ever repressible Solicitor General Tushar Mehta made his own addition to the misery and said: “We have seen this….There is Newton’s law which says every action has equal reaction, but now every action has disproportionate social media reaction.”. 

The situation today is so volatile that even in a lighter vein, one cannot afford to crack jokes. Every statement is taken to an extreme, and the authors of such light banters are taken to task. This is in spite of the fact that even right to freedom of religion not only guarantees its profession, practice, and propagation as a fundamental right. 

In fact, even in the early 1920s, the Indian Penal Code was amended and Section 295A was inserted, under which any deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious belief are liable to be punished with three years imprisonment. 

“Once blasphemy against God was the greatest blasphemy; but God died and thereupon  those blasphemers died too”, said Zarathustra. He escaped from any attack or prosecution as these utterances were much before the so-called civilised world defined tolerance.  For a believer to make a statement in a lighter vein itself is so difficult; one can only imagine the plight of the non-believers adorning the portals of higher judiciary. 

God in the Courtroom: Selective Outrage

This author himself had got into problems several times over lighter banter made in open courts. When a lawyer asked for police protection to conduct a temple festival, this author remarked in court as to why the Gods need protection from the mortals, when he is supposed to save us. 

On another occasion, when a lawyer demanded a separate cremation shed for his caste, the court noted the ash on his forehead and asked about the real purpose of the ash on his forehead.

He was then told that if everything is reduced to carbon, what is the use of having separate burning of bodies? Petitions were sent to the Chief Justice and representations were made, claiming this author had wounded religious sentiments! 

What is more surprising is that if a judge who adorns the bench claims divinity in their orders, neither the organised Bar nor the social media trollers ever rise in criticism.

The statement made by former CJI Dhananjay Chandrachud—that the Ram Janmabhoomi verdict was due to his prayer to the God and the result was that of his prayer—remains contentious.

It remains a question, whether a judge can put the blame on God for the result of the verdict, especially when that God himself was a party in the suit which gave rise to the appeal. As is well known, the suit in Allahabad was instituted in the name of Ram Lalla Virajman, and since Balarama was a minor, it was represented by a guardian as required.

'Divine Intervention' in Judgments

It is not the first time that judges have invoked divine pleasure and divinity in judgment-making. When the Citizenship Amendment Act was passed, there was a huge protest near Shaheen Bagh, where thousands of women and children squatted on the road margins for days together.

Entertaining a public interest litigation, a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul initially ordered a team of lawyers to mediate and get the crowd to clear the platform. When that failed, the bench was compelled to pronounce judgment on whether people have the right to protest by squatting in public spaces for days together. It was, by any measure, a difficult task for the court.

Writing for the bench, Justice Kaul wrote in 2020:

“We are conscious that we chartered a different path and thought of an out of the box solution towards an effort which can loosely be called a mediation. However, this did not produce a solution. But then, we have no regrets as we are of the view that it is better to try and fail, than not to try at all!  The hand of God subsequently intervened and overtook the situation as not only our country, but also the world grappled with the Coronavirus pandemic.”

When Justice Bhagwati, who was a staunch devotee of Satya Sai Baba, claimed after the latter's demise all his judgments were guided by Baba, everyone was shocked.

Now that we have seen both Bhagwati and Chandrachud were invoking God in their decision-making process, the question arises: was ADM Jabalpur the result of divine blessing, or was its being held erroneous later also sanctified by the divine?

The Oath vs Faith

In fact, Justice Rohinton Nariman came out against such attributions to judgments and he said that the judges that say they sought divine intervention while pronouncing a certain judgment are actually violating the oath to the Constitution. He said:

"Whether with divine or bovine intervention or any other kind of intervention, if a judge delivers a judgment, he is violating his oath to the constitution. You (judges) have to live only by your oath to the Constitution and the laws. And when you live by your oath to the Constitution and the laws, you certainly bring in your own morality. That's about as far as it goes."

Justice BR Gavai has only few weeks for the end of his tenure. Without such banters, the otherwise drab court scenes will lose their charm. The trouble, however, is that the trollers cannot be selective in their outrage.

(Justice K Chandru is a former judge of the Madras High Court. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the author's own. The Quint neither endorses them nor is responsible for them.)