Sanatan Dharma, Hindutva, and the Erosion of Judicial Independence in India:

On a tense Monday morning, the Supreme Court of India witnessed a shocking and unprecedented act of courtroom aggression. During a routine hearing, lawyer Rakesh Kishore removed his shoe and hurled it toward Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai while shouting, “Sanatan dharma ka apmaan, nahi sahega Hindustan”—India will not tolerate disrespect towards Sanatan Dharma. The outburst came after the CJI dismissed a petition seeking the "rehabilitation" of a Vishnu idol at a Khajuraho temple under the Archaeological Survey of India. But this was no ordinary protest. It was a violent, symbolic act—directed at a Dalit judge occupying the highest constitutional position in India. More than just an emotional reaction, it represented an attempt to intimidate the judiciary using the language of religious nationalism. Even more disturbing was what followed: no legal consequences for the attacker. Though immediately removed from the courtroom, the lawyer was released without charges. Reports indicate that his shoe was even returned to him. The Supreme Court Registry did not initiate formal proceedings, and the police were told not to detain him. While the Bar Council of India suspended his license, this move felt more like a formality than genuine accountability. Prime Minister Narendra Modi did call the act “utterly condemnable,” but his response lacked any concrete promise of legal or institutional action. This apparent impunity for Hindutva-aligned aggression sends a worrying message. When actions are framed in the name of Sanatan Dharma, accountability seems negotiable. It reflects a deepening trend of ideological capture of institutions, where majoritarianism is not just tolerated—but protected. This isn't an isolated incident. Back in December 2024, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court attended a Vishva Hindu Parishad event—an affiliate of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Speaking on the Uniform Civil Code, he publicly referred to religious texts in divisive terms: “Our Gita, your Quran.” He even used a derogatory slur for Muslims. Though the Supreme Court initially sought an explanation, no firm action was taken. The judge refused to retract his statements, claiming they aligned with “constitutional values.” Eventually, the inquiry was dropped after the Rajya Sabha Secretariat stated that only Parliament could act against a judge. An opposition-led impeachment attempt fizzled out in procedural deadlock. Justice Yadav remains in office—unchallenged and untouched. These episodes, taken together, reveal a disturbing truth: when sectarian views align with the ruling ideology, even the judiciary is shielded from scrutiny. What was once the constitutional guardian of justice now appears increasingly vulnerable to Hindutva influence. The independence of the judiciary is central to any democracy. But if attacks on judges—especially Dalit judges—and communal rhetoric from the bench go unchecked, India risks normalizing casteism and religious bias within its highest institutions. The judiciary must reclaim its role as a neutral arbiter, or risk becoming just another tool of the majoritarian state.

NEWS