Analysis Business

Opportunistic Dalit play: How attack on CJI Gavai exposes left-liberal hypocrisy

author-image
Shailesh Khanduri
Updated On
New Update
B R Gavai Supreme Court

Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai (File image)

New Delhi: In a courtroom drama that ignited nationwide debate, suspended advocate Rakesh Kishore attempted to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai on October 6, 2025, shouting "Sanatan ka apman nahi sahenge" (We will not tolerate the insult of Sanatan Dharma).

This act, while condemnable, stems from deep-seated frustration over what many perceive as the judiciary's repeated trampling of Hindu religious sentiments.

Soon after the incident, the incident was projected as an attack on CJI because of his Dalit identity, for political gains.

The display of Dalit identity in the aftermath appears opportunistic. When CJI Gavai made insulting remarks on Lord Vishnu, he did not reveal his Dalit credentials to soften the blow.

Instead, he spoke as if perched on a throne with the right to insult Hindus.

Also read: Arnab calls out CJI Gavai on air; a day later CJI terms it a social-media issue

Would any judge dare say something similar about Prophet Muhammad? The social media platforms were flooded with similar concerns after the CJI’s controversial remarks.

The moment he was attacked, however, Dalit politics was thrown into the ring by left-liberals, framing the incident as caste-based hatred rather than a response to religious mockery.

Also read: Former J-K DGP demands CJI Gavai’s resignation over ‘mocking’ Lord Vishnu

Many prominent voices echoed that Hindus are tolerant, and this is why it was just a shoe, not "sar tan se juda", a chilling reminder of the violent reactions often seen in criticisms of other faiths.

Contrary to the opposition’s narrative, people should remember this fact: the attack was not precisely due to CJI Gavai's Dalit status but for attacking the majority's religious sentiments, which have been crushed by the judiciary time and again.

Also read: Outrage over CJI Gavai's 'mocking' remarks on Lord Vishnu Idol plea

CJI Gavai tried to behave even above a Hindu god, despite his salary and position being funded largely by Hindu taxpayers in a Hindu-majority nation. Even if he identifies as Dalit, the outrage was rooted in his dismissive jibe, not caste.

From Lord Vishnu remarks to shoe attempt

The controversy erupted in September 2025 during a Supreme Court hearing on a petition to restore a damaged 7-foot idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari Temple in Khajuraho, vandalised during Mughal invasions.

Dismissing the plea as "publicity interest litigation," CJI Gavai remarked sarcastically: "Go and ask the deity itself to do something now. You say you are a staunch devotee of Lord Vishnu. So go, pray and do some meditation."

These words were seen as mocking Hindu devotion, treating sacred beliefs as frivolous.

After dismissing the criticism as a social media chat, CJI Gavai ignored calls for an apology and said he respected all religions, including Hinduism, and visited temples himself. But the damage was done, fueling accusations of anti-Hindu bias.

Enter Rakesh Kishore, a 71-year-old advocate with no prior violent record, who claimed "divine intervention" prompted his action.

Post-attack, he challenged the opportunistic use of Gavai's Dalit identity: "My name is Dr Rakesh Kishore. Can someone tell my caste? Maybe I am a Dalit too. It is one-sided that you are taking advantage of the fact that he (CJI Gavai) is a Dalit. He is not a Dalit. He was a Sanatani Hindu first. He then renounced his faith and followed Buddhism. If he feels that he has come out of Hinduism after following Buddhism, how is he still a Dalit? This is about mindset..."

Kishore was arrested, suspended by the Bar Council, and the Supreme Court Bar Association condemned the act as a "direct assault" on judicial independence.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi called the attack "utterly condemnable," praising Gavai's composure.

Yet, the narrative swiftly shifted to caste.

Accounts like @ambedkariteIND portrayed the backlash as Manuvadi (upper-caste) intolerance of a Dalit in power: "Manuvadis could have criticised CJI Gavai’s judgment or statement, but instead, they are hurling casteist slurs at him... they cannot tolerate that a person from the Dalit community has become the Chief Justice of India."

Left-liberals speak only after attack

Check any left-liberal tweets, and you'll find no one even criticising what CJI said about Lord Vishnu. But when he was attacked, everyone felt bad.

Journalist Rajdeep Sardesai exemplified this: "Shoe thrown at CJI Justice Gavai in court by a lawyer claiming that he would not tolerate ‘anti sanatan’ remarks. TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE behaviour... Sadly, a culture of caste hatred and religious intolerance is being ‘normalised’..."

Sardesai decried the violence and linked it to caste, but omitted any rebuke of Gavai's original remarks. Similarly, accounts like @TeamSaath focused on threats post-attack without addressing the religious hurt.

In contrast, right-leaning voices like @UnSubtleDesi (Nupur J Sharma) called out the hypocrisy: "In 2024, CJI BR Gavai was a part of the bench which asked judges to be mindful... Today, he insults Hindus with impunity."

@RituRathaur slammed Gavai for endorsing caste-hate skits while mocking Hindus.

This double standard, ignoring insults to Hindu gods but amplifying Dalit victimhood, fuels perceptions of an anti-Hindu ecosystem where left-liberals weaponise identity politics to shield judicial overreach.

Judiciary's pattern of insult and selective targeting

Such incidents are part of a broader pattern where judges are accused of singling out Hindu religion, festivities, and deities, often insulting or taking Hindus for granted. The judiciary intervenes aggressively in Hindu affairs while treading lightly on others, creating an uneven field.

  1. Khajuraho Lord Vishnu Idol Case (2025): CJI Gavai's own "ask the deity" quip mocked Hindu faith, exposing entrenched bias. OpIndia noted this as one of many instances where judiciary treats Hindu sanctity as expendable.

  2. Sabarimala Temple Entry (2018): Supreme Court overturned the tradition barring menstruating women, deeming it discriminatory, judicial overreach into Hindu customs with no parallels in other faiths.

  3. Diwali Firecracker Bans (Multiple Years): Courts impose pollution-based restrictions around Diwali, but ignore similar issues during Eid or Christmas. In 2023, enforcement was strict, seen as targeting Hindu celebrations.

  4. Jallikattu Ban (2014, Reversed 2017): Initial ban on the Pongal-linked bull-taming festival as cruelty erased cultural significance, sparking protests.

  5. Animal Sacrifice Bans (e.g., Gadhimai, Dussehra): Prohibitions on Hindu festival sacrifices for cruelty, but no interventions in Eid practices.

  6. Remarks on Hindu Epics (Various): Justices like Rohinton Nariman called Ramayana "mythology," diminishing sacred texts. Justice Joseph questioned rituals in 2020.

  7. Nupur Sharma Case (2022): Court blamed Sharma for violence over Islamic comments, but lenient on anti-Hindu calls like Udhayanidhi Stalin's "eradicate Sanatan Dharma."

  8. Holi Mockery Dismissal (2025): Bombay HC dismissed a plea against Holi mockery, saying "Don't be so sensitive", implying Hindu festivals are fair game.

  9. Uniform Civil Code Speech (2024): Allahabad HC Justice Yadav's remarks on majority (Hindu) rule drew fire, but highlighted selective scrutiny.

  10. Temple Control: Hindu temples under state control, unlike mosques or churches, allowing government interference.

These examples, drawn from court records and analyses, show judges often frame Hindu practices as regressive, while avoiding similar insults to other deities or festivals.

Studies on judicial in-group bias note favouritism, with underrepresentation exacerbating anti-Hindu leanings.

CJI Hinduism Sanatan Dharma Supreme Court Shoe hurling incident Judiciary Indian judiciary Dalit Dalit Politics caste politics Nupur Sharma Lord Vishnu B R Gavai Chief Justice of India