At the heart of Khajuraho stands a centuries-old Vishnu idol, now headless, a reminder of history’s scars. A devotee approached the Supreme Court hoping the seven-foot figure could be restored, so worshippers might once again see the deity in full form.
The Court, led by Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai, however, turned down the plea. The judges explained that Khajuraho is a protected heritage site and any restoration lies strictly under the Archaeological Survey of India’s rules, which forbid reconstructing lost parts of monuments.
What drew the most attention though were the CJI’s words to the petitioner: “If you are a true devotee of Lord Vishnu, go and pray to Him to act.” He also called the case a “publicity litigation.”
These remarks have sparked an emotional response. Lawyers like Vineet Jindal and Satyam Singh Rajput wrote letters, saying the comments hurt religious sentiments and urging the Chief Justice to withdraw them. Devotees too feel the issue deserved a more sensitive hearing.
The legal reasoning behind the Court’s stand is clear, rooted in conservation law. Yet, the episode has opened a wider debate—about how faith, heritage, and the language of justice can sometimes collide, and how deeply words from the highest court can resonate with people’s beliefs.
