The Supreme Court of India on Monday witnessed an unprecedented scene when advocate Rakesh Kishore hurled a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai. The 71-year-old lawyer was quickly restrained by security, but not before he shouted slogans such as “Sanatan ka apmaan nahi sahega Hindustan.”
The protest, police later confirmed, was linked to Kishore’s unhappiness over CJI Gavai’s recent oral remarks in a case concerning the restoration of a beheaded idol of Lord Vishnu in the Khajuraho temple complex. While dismissing the plea, the Chief Justice observed, “Go and ask the deity himself to do something now. You say you are a staunch devotee of Lord Vishnu. So go and pray now.” Though not part of the written order, the remark provoked outrage among devotees, with Hindu groups accusing the judiciary of mocking their faith.
Pattern of Disregard Alleged by Hindu Groups
This is not the first time Hindus have felt slighted by judicial actions or inactions. Commentators point out a pattern:
Entertainment and Expression Cases: The Supreme Court has in the past readily entertained petitions against films or shows accused of hurting minority sentiments. For instance, cases concerning the Netflix series Sacred Games and controversies around films like PK were quickly listed. In contrast, petitions regarding derogatory portrayals of Hindu deities often languish without similar urgency.
Festivals and Rituals: Judicial interventions have frequently imposed restrictions on Hindu festivals and traditions. Orders have set limits on firecracker usage during Diwali, discouraged excess water use during Holi, placed conditions on Dahi Handi (matki) competitions in Maharashtra, and even scrutinized the presence of elephants and other animals in temple rituals. Critics argue that while environmental or animal welfare concerns are valid, the selective focus on Hindu practices creates perceptions of bias.
Temple Autonomy: Many Hindu temples remain under state government control, unlike places of worship belonging to other communities. Efforts to regain autonomy have met with prolonged litigation without resolution.
Historic Grievances: Cases such as the displacement of Kashmiri Pandits in the 1990s continue to languish without closure, deepening the community’s sense of neglect.
Contrast With Decisive Actions Elsewhere
In contrast, the judiciary has acted decisively in matters affecting other communities. The Supreme Court struck down triple talaq in 2017, citing constitutional rights, and has often intervened swiftly in cases relating to minority concerns. Critics allege this difference in pace and seriousness contributes to the perception that Hindu issues are deprioritized.
The Broader Context
The Vishnu idol case in Khajuraho, and the subsequent shoe-throwing episode, is being seen as a symptom of this growing dissatisfaction. Hindu commentators argue that oral remarks by judges, though not binding, carry cultural weight and can alienate large sections of society. The recent uproar underscores the demand for greater sensitivity from the bench when dealing with faith-related issues.
CJI’s Response
CJI Gavai, unperturbed by the disruption, remarked in court: “Don’t get distracted by all this. We are not distracted. These things do not affect me.” He later clarified that his comments on the Vishnu idol were being misinterpreted, emphasizing that he respects all religions.
Conclusion
The shoe-throwing incident may have been an isolated act of protest, but it points to deeper tensions. For many Hindus, the perception that their faith traditions are singled out for restrictions while their grievances are sidelined has created a sense of alienation. The judiciary, they argue, must balance its role as an impartial arbiter with a sensitivity to cultural and religious contexts. Otherwise, as today’s courtroom drama shows, the simmering frustration risks boiling over in unpredictable ways