It may not be a regular happening, but we have come across occasions when an off the cuff remark has snowballed into a major controversy, especially in politics and public life, with the person making the remark drawing flak from diverse sections and subject to a backlash, whose impact is lowered after the individual either apologises or withdraws the statement. This is being learnt the hard way by Justice B R Gavai, the Chief Justice of India (CJI). Ironically, this was triggered by an observation he made on September 16 while heading a Supreme Court bench that was dealing with a petition seeking repair and restoration of a seven-foot beheaded idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari temple, a UNESCO World Heritage site, which is part of the famed Khajuraho group of monuments in Madhya Pradesh. As part of routine legal proceedings, he stated that the matter was within the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the court had nothing to do with the issue. Justice Gavai refused to entertain the PIL on those very grounds. However, on persistent pleas by the petitioner, Justice Gavai made a remark that has sparked a nationwide debate as it seemingly ‘hurts’ religious sentiments.

Dismissing the plea, the apex court bench contended that it was an out and out ‘publicity interest litigation’ and added that as it was an archaeological find, it was for the ASI to take a call on the plea. Meanwhile, when petitioner, Rakesh Dalal, claimed that the idol was mutilated during Mughal invasions and has remained in that state despite repeated representations to the government to restore it, the first Buddhist to occupy the country’s most exalted judicial position, remarked “Go and ask the deity himself to do something. If you are saying that you are a strong devotee of Lord Vishnu, then you pray and do some meditation. In the meantime, if you are not averse to Shaivism, you can go and worship there… there is a very big linga of Shiva, one of the biggest in Khajuraho.” Perhaps, he may have never reckoned with the kind of backlash that these remarks would whip up and the row they would stir. But then they did, especially on the social media, with many questioning the rationale behind those utterances, howsoever relevant they were to that specific PIL.

In a swift reaction to the outcry, the CJI clarified that his remarks were misrepresented. Even so, one cannot stop people from criticising such ‘religiously inclined’ remarks, irrespective of who has made them and in what context. After all, the Chief Justice of India is also a citizen. Even if one can make light of VHP’s criticism as is its wont, the fact is that he has drawn flak from all over. Some have sought his impeachment, while many from the legal fraternity have urged him to withdraw the comments and come clear on the issue. Justice Gavai has clarified that he was a ‘true secularist’ and that nothing deeper or beyond should be read into his observations. Taken on a broader canvas, one should understand that if similar comments were made by a political leader, he or she would be scoffed at and hounded by people and not just by religious organisations and political opponents. They won’t be able to get away even if they maintain that the remarks were blown out of proportion or misrepresented given that the damage was done.