The Supreme Court recently dismissed a petition asking for the restoration of a seven-foot-tall broken idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari temple in Khajuraho. The idol, damaged centuries ago during Mughal invasions, has remained headless ever since. Rakesh Dalal, the petitioner, wanted the Court to restore the idol so that devotees could worship and the temple’s sanctity could be revived.

The case was heard on September 16, 2025, by a bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai. The Court ruled that the idol would remain as it is and said devotees could pray at other temples. 

During the hearing, CJI Gavai 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.”

It is important to remember that the CJI is a Dalit, a Buddhist, and an admirer of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. Ambedkarite Buddhists take 22 vows, the first being: “I shall have no faith in Brahma, Vishnu, or Mahesh, nor worship them.”

Choosing to follow this vow is a personal matter, and that’s perfectly fine. But problems arise when personal beliefs influence professional decisions.

The petitioner was exercising rights protected by the Constitution, Articles 25 to 28, which include the right to worship and practice religion freely. As the Chief Justice, it is his duty to protect these rights, regardless of personal beliefs. 

The request was simple: restore the idol’s head. The Court could have said yes or no, but it should have provided clear reasoning. Instead, the Chief Justice’s comments seemed dismissive and mocking.

Dalal said he was disappointed, as the decision hurt his religious feelings. He had filed the petition on June 13, 2025, staged protests, and even submitted a memorandum to the Union Home Minister asking for the idol’s restoration. The Javari temple, built between 1050 and 1075 AD by the Chandela rulers, is a UNESCO World Heritage site, famous for its architecture and carvings of Lord Vishnu’s ten avatars. The headless idol has prevented worship at the temple, making this issue meaningful for devotees.

Personal faith is a matter of choice, but it should not affect the Court’s duty to protect everyone’s rights. The question was simple: can devotees exercise their right to worship at a historic temple? The answer needed clarity, not a sarcastic remark.

In India’s diverse society, judges must separate personal beliefs from professional duties. Protecting religious rights is not about personal opinion; it is about upholding the Constitution.

For devotees, the idol is not just a stone; it is a symbol of faith, however broken. For the petitioner, restoring it meant restoring dignity.

The Supreme Court’s role is to interpret the law, not to mock belief. Personal vows, whether Ambedkarite, Hindu, or otherwise, are private matters. The Constitution, however, is a public contract. When seated on the Bench, a Chief Justice is not just a person of faith or disbelief; he is the guardian of rights that belong equally to all citizens.