Chief Justice of India BR Gavai expressed concern over judges’ oral comments being misrepresented online. He highlighted the need for caution after a lawyer attempted to throw a shoe over remarks on Khajuraho Vishnu idol case.
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on Tuesday expressed serious concern over how oral remarks made by judges in court proceedings are often misrepresented on social media.
His remarks came during a hearing, just a day after an unusual and alarming incident in which a lawyer, reportedly unhappy with the CJI’s comments last month regarding the restoration of a Vishnu idol in Khajuraho, attempted to throw a shoe at him in court. The incident drew widespread condemnation across the country.
Speaking in a lighter tone during the hearing, CJI Gavai shared an anecdote about a previous case where he had restrained his colleague, Justice K Vinod Chandran, from making certain open observations to prevent potential misinterpretation online.
“My learned brother (Justice K Vinod Chandran) had something to comment, I stopped him from expressing it, when we were hearing the Dheeraj Mor case. Otherwise, on this social media, we do not know what will be reported. I requested my learned brother to restrict it only to my ears,”
the CJI said, highlighting the caution judges must exercise in the digital age.
The bench, comprising CJI Gavai and Justice Chandran, was hearing a plea filed by the All India Judges Association, which raised concerns over service conditions, pay scales, and career progression of judicial officers.
The petition particularly focused on the career stagnation faced by lower judicial officers across the country and sought guidance from a five-judge Constitution bench.
The shoe-throwing incident that occurred on Monday was unprecedented and shocking.
Police sources reported that the elderly lawyer involved was unhappy with CJI Gavai’s remarks made during a hearing last month regarding the restoration of a seven-foot idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari temple, part of the UNESCO World Heritage Khajuraho temple complex in Madhya Pradesh.
During that earlier hearing, a bench led by CJI Gavai had dismissed the plea seeking directions to reconstruct and reinstall the idol.
The CJI had described the petition as a “publicity interest litigation,” stating,
“This is purely publicity interest litigation…. 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.”
His remarks were widely discussed online, prompting criticism from several quarters.
Responding to the criticism, CJI Gavai later clarified his stance, emphasizing his respect for all faiths. He said, “I respect all religions,” underscoring that his comments were aimed at the nature of the litigation rather than any religious sentiment.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Orders Delhi Govt to Report on Threat to Unnao Rape Victim’s Mother
This incident has highlighted the increasing challenges faced by the judiciary in the era of social media, where comments made in courtrooms can be easily taken out of context and amplified online.
CJI Gavai’s cautionary approach reflects a growing awareness among judges about the need to balance transparency with careful communication, especially in sensitive matters that attract public attention.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI BR Gavai
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
