Khajuraho temple misquote row: CJI Gavai affirms he respects all religions

The Supreme Court turned its attention to the growing menace of social media misinformation after Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai was misquoted in connection with a remark on a Lord Vishnu idol in Khajuraho. The episode not only sparked an unnecessary online storm but also prompted senior members of the Bar and Bench to voice deep concern about the disproportionate impact of distorted narratives circulating in the digital space.

Following the controversy, CJI Gavai affirmed his respect for all religions, saying, "Someone told me the other day that the comments I made have been portrayed in social media...I respect all religions."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta summed it up with a sharp analogy, “We used to learn Newton’s law for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Now, with the advent of social media, we have a new rule - for every action, there is a wrong and disproportionate social media over-reaction.”

Mehta said it was unfortunate that an observation made during a judicial proceeding was twisted, taken out of context, and then amplified to suggest that the CJI had insulted a deity. “I know the CJI for the last 10 years,” he said, stressing that Justice Gavai visits all religious places with equal reverence and would not even think of disrespecting any deity.

The immediate trigger was a matter relating to the management of temples at Khajuraho, where a stray misinterpretation of the CJI’s words was picked up and circulated as if he had spoken disparagingly about the Lord Vishnu idol. The viral clip quickly set off outrage, forcing clarifications from all sides.

Justice Vinod Chandran, sitting on the bench, offered a candid reflection on the toxic potential of uninformed online commentary. Recalling his own experience, he said that when he recused from a matter because a lawyer appearing was known to him, social media commentary spun it into insinuations. “Social media is, in fact, anti-social media,” Justice Chandran remarked, capturing the disconnect between online narratives and real-world accountability.

Senior advocate Sanjay Nuli, who appeared for the petitioner in the Khajuraho matter, too stepped in to underline that the CJI had never made the remarks attributed to him. “This kind of distortion is deeply worrying,” he said, adding that misreporting judicial observations undermines public faith in institutions.

The Khajuraho controversy highlights the widening gulf between judicial discourse inside courtrooms and its representation in the public sphere, particularly on social media platforms.

For the judiciary, which relies heavily on public confidence, such distortions pose a dual threat. First, they erode trust by creating false impressions about the personal beliefs or integrity of judges. Second, they risk pressuring judges into self-censorship, thereby constraining free judicial dialogue.

While free reporting of judicial proceedings is vital for transparency, responsible framing is equally crucial to prevent distortion.