Attack on CJI Gavai Highlights Misunderstanding of Sanatan Dharma

Attack on CJI Gavai and Its Misrepresentation of Sanatan Dharma

On October 7, 2025, the Supreme Court witnessed a shocking act when advocate Rakesh Kishore, 72, hurled his shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai. The incident, justified by Kishore as a defense of “Sanatan Dharma,” underscores a profound misunderstanding of dharma, justice, and true religious respect.

Misplaced Outrage in the Name of God

Kishore claimed divine sanction for his violent act, citing an alleged insult to Sanatan Dharma related to a Supreme Court ruling on the restoration of a damaged Lord Vishnu idol in Khajuraho. CJI Gavai, a Buddhist, had advised petitioners to introspect and meditate, noting that courts could not order archaeological restoration. This measured guidance was twisted into a narrative of religious insult, culminating in Kishore’s attack.

Ironically, such an act contradicts the very essence of Sanatan Dharma, which embodies eternal moral law, truth, and respect for all beings. Attacking a judge, the highest seat of justice, betrays these dharmic principles.

Understanding Sanatan Dharma

The term “Sanatan Dharma” literally means eternal law or duty. It first appears in early Buddhist texts like the Subhashita Sutta of the Suttanipata, highlighting timeless moral order rather than sectarian identity. Modern attempts to exclusively associate it with Hindu identity emerged during colonial times to unify communities against Western influence.

Sanatan Dharma promotes truth, righteousness, and non-violence (ahimsa). Using it to justify aggression fundamentally misinterprets its teachings.

Online Celebration and Weaponisation of Faith

Following the attack, some online communities celebrated the act as a defense of dharma. Social media amplified the incident with GIFs and videos depicting Kishore’s shoe throw as “divine justice.” Such reactions misrepresent dharma and glorify lawlessness, creating a dangerous precedent for justifying violence in faith’s name.

The Bar Council revoked Kishore’s membership, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed regret, yet online adulation persisted, highlighting the spread of misinformation and communal manipulation.

CJI Gavai’s Composure: A Lesson in Dharma

CJI Gavai responded with calm and dignity. He refused to file a complaint, returned Kishore’s sandal, and clarified that his remarks were never intended to disrespect any religion, stating, “I respect all religions.” This response exemplifies true dharma—resolute, measured, and grounded in moral duty.

Conclusion

Violence in the name of Sanatan Dharma contradicts its core teachings. True adherence requires restraint, reason, tolerance, and respect for justice. The incident serves as a reminder that faith cannot be weaponized, and dharma is upheld not through aggression but through ethical conduct, moral duty, and reverence for truth.