Thu Sep 18 10:02:31 UTC 2025: Here’s a summary of the text and a rewritten news article:

**Summary:**

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai defended his secular beliefs after facing social media criticism regarding his remarks on a case concerning the reconstruction of a Lord Vishnu idol at the Khajuraho Javari temple. The CJI and Justice K. Vinod Chandran had dismissed a plea seeking the idol’s replacement and reinstallation, calling it a “publicity interest litigation” and suggesting the petitioner pray or worship at a nearby Shiva temple instead. The incident sparked online backlash, leading the CJI to clarify his respect for all religions.

**News Article:**

**CJI Gavai Defends Secularism Amidst Social Media Backlash Over Temple Case Remarks**

**New Delhi, September 18, 2025 (The Hindu) –** Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai today addressed criticism circulating on social media regarding his comments during a case involving the reconstruction of a Lord Vishnu idol at the Javari temple in Khajuraho, a UNESCO World Heritage site.

The controversy stems from a May 16th ruling where a bench led by CJI Gavai dismissed a plea filed by Rakesh Dalal seeking the replacement and re-consecration of a damaged Vishnu idol at the Chhatarpur district temple. The court deemed the plea a “publicity interest litigation,” with the CJI suggesting the petitioner pray to the deity or visit a nearby Shiva temple.

These remarks ignited online backlash, with some users questioning the CJI’s neutrality.

Today, CJI Gavai affirmed his respect for “all religions” and reiterated his belief in secularism. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta supported the CJI, condemning the out-of-context twisting of comments on social media. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal characterized social media as an “unruly horse.”

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the plea highlights the complexities of balancing religious sentiments with legal considerations. The incident also underscores the pervasive influence of social media in shaping public perception and scrutinizing judicial proceedings. The case continues to fuel discussions about religious freedom, judicial impartiality, and the responsible use of online platforms.

Read More