Aniruddhacharya Maharaj strongly criticized the Chief Justice of India for comments perceived as disrespectful to Lord Vishnu and Sanatan Dharma. He urged judges to deliver justice instead of leaving it solely to divine power, sparking nationwide debate.
A recent remark made by a CJI has sparked major outrage among people who follow Hindu and Sanatan culture. In court, the judge reportedly said,
“why should we decide? Your God has so much power, let your God do it himself.”
This statement has triggered strong reactions, with many questioning the role and responsibility of judges in a constitutional democracy like India.
Citizens are asking whether such a remark, which directly touches upon faith and religion, is appropriate for someone sitting on the chair of justice.
Critics argue that if such logic is applied, then the very position of the judiciary itself becomes meaningless. As one reaction pointed out, if the judge believes that God will do everything, then
“why are you breaking the judge’s chair? Why brother? You have been made a judge, not because you do justice. You should do justice.”
Strong voices from the community have also highlighted that such remarks hurt Hindu sentiments and insult Sanatan Dharma.
Many pointed out that the judge’s words amounted to mocking Lord Vishnu and questioning divine power. In response, people countered by recalling the stories of Hindu scriptures where God intervened against evil.
One reaction noted,
“Your God has so much power, let your God do it himself. He can do everything. He can appear and kill Ravan.”
Another said,
“He can break Hiranyakashyapu’s chest. Now, if you want to break your chest, then tell Narsingh Bhagwan. Because, God comes to kill unrighteous people like you.”
Many devotees also expressed their belief that God deliberately empowers humans to carry out duties like justice.
Watch Video:
As one explanation went,
“And God is thinking, you people are sitting on the chair, you do it, we have to bathe. That is why God is not coming. Otherwise, God came to kill Hiranyaksha for himself.”
Citing mythology, it was reminded that
“Hiranyaksha was so powerful. He had asked for a boon day and night. So, you are sitting on the throne of justice, you are a judge.”
The criticism continued with the direct question,
“So, you have only gone there to break bread. Or you have gone to do justice. So, is what the judge is saying right or wrong? Tell me.”
The statement also raised larger questions about the accountability of judges. Many argued that if judges really believe that God alone should act, then
“If God does all this, then leave your chair. Why are you sitting there as a judge? Is it right or wrong?”
The controversy deepened further as people accused the judge of targeting Hindu culture while never daring to speak similarly about other religions.
As the criticism stated,
“That is why, the biggest thing is that, in the side of Sanatan, even after being a big judge, he is talking against Sanatan. After living in Sanatan India, could any judge speak against any Muslim? Could he speak against the mosque or against Allah? Only the Hindu Sanatan Sanskriti Sochi, such a big judge, is putting a burden on Lord Vishnu.”
This reaction reflects a growing concern among Hindus that tolerance is often mistaken for weakness. Many stressed that,
“Because Hindus, tolerate the insult of their Gods. They don’t even speak. You are very tolerant.”
It was further noted that this tolerance has historically led to the destruction of temples. The criticism continued,
“That is why, the temple was broken. Who do you depend on? That the judge will do justice? Where is the judge doing justice? The judge is saying the opposite, that if you have the power in your God, then let God do it. That is what the judge is saying.”
This has raised fears that judicial bias may prevent justice in matters related to Hindu faith.
As expressed strongly,
“Now, do you expect him to do justice in the side of Sanatan? Not in the side of Sanatan, the justice that is there, that there was a temple, the statue was broken by the Mughals. So, there the statue is broken. So, if it is broken, then the statue should be erected.”
The debate also invoked historical references like Khajuraho, with the sentiment that
“That’s all. There is an incident with Khajuraho, the temple there. In the side of Sanatan, there was no law, no person.”
Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Restore Lord Vishnu Idol at Khajuraho
Earlier, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition seeking to replace a damaged 7-foot idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari temple in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh.
The petitioner, Rakesh Dalal, argued that restoring the idol, which was decapitated during Mughal invasions centuries ago, was essential to revive the temple’s sanctity and resume worship.
The Javari temple, constructed by the Chandela rulers between 1050 and 1075 AD, is part of the Khajuraho temple complex, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Devotees have long claimed that the broken idol has hindered prayers at the sanctum sanctorum.
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, heading the bench, dismissed the plea with sharp remarks. Addressing Dalal, he said:
“This is purely publicity interest litigation, 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.”
The comment, intended sarcastically, quickly went viral, provoking widespread outrage. For Dalal and supporters, the ruling was not only a legal setback but also a perceived insult to Hindu sentiments.
Following the judgment, protests erupted at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi, and Dalal submitted a memorandum to Home Minister Amit Shah, urging immediate government action to restore the idol. On social media, the backlash was swift:
“At times words hurt you more than knives, an insult that will echo for generations.”
Advocate Vineet Jindal wrote to CJI Gavai, requesting an immediate withdrawal of the remarks, calling them hurtful to Hindu sentiments. A copy of the letter was also sent to the President of India, highlighting the national significance of the controversy.
The court clarified that worshippers remain free to pray at other temples, but altering a centuries-old artifact in a protected heritage site could not be permitted.
While the judges prioritized historical preservation, devotees emphasized the spiritual importance of restoring the idol, reflecting the delicate balance India’s courts must navigate between faith and law.
Calls for Impeachment of CJI B.R. Gavai
The controversy over the Lord Vishnu remarks has intensified public calls for the impeachment of Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai. Social media campaigns demanding “Impeach the CJI” gained rapid traction, led by retired officials, religious activists, and prominent social influencers.
ALSO READ: Delhi Court Extends Judicial Custody of Rajesh Khimji & Tehseen Syed in CM Attack Case
The impeachment debate focuses on whether the remarks constitute misbehavior or judicial misconduct, which under Article 124(4) of the Indian Constitution, is the only ground for removing a Supreme Court judge, including the Chief Justice of India.
Key points of the impeachment process:
- Removal requires a motion passed by both Houses of Parliament.
- It must be supported by a special majority in each House.
- It is valid only on proven misbehavior or incapacity.
Click Here To Read More Reports on CJI B.R. Gavai
