The Indian Judiciary and Hinduism | Some notable examples of Blatant Bias
Table of Contents
Read the Main Article here - A Comprehensive Indictment of the Anti-Hindu Judiciary of Modern India
Judicial Views on Hinduism/Sanatana in India
The Indian judiciary’s record on Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma is mixed. Supreme Court benches have often described Hinduism/Hindutva in broad, inclusive terms, but in practice some judges have made controversial remarks or rulings affecting Hindu practices. Critics point to instances of alleged bias or anti-Hindu actions. Below are key examples (with sources) of judges’ statements or rulings relating to Hinduism or religion:
CJ P.B. Gajendragadkar (SC, 1966) – In Sastri Yagnapurushadji v. Muldas Vaishya (5-judge bench), the Court acknowledged that Hinduism is hard to define. Gajendragadkar wrote that “the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet… it does not worship any one god, it does not subscribe to any one dogma…it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion or creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more”1 . This portrays Hinduism as pluralistic and tolerant (a positive note).
Justice J.S. Verma (SC, 1996) – In Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Union of India, Verma famously held that the terms “‘Hinduism’ or ‘Hindutva’ are not necessarily to be understood narrowly… they depict the way of life of the Indian people”2 . He added that viewing “Hindutva” as per se hostility or enmity towards other faiths is an “error of law”. In other words, Verma’s judgment treated Hindutva as cultural ethos, not inherently communal2 . (Right-wing critics later labeled this the “Hindutva way of life” doctrine.)
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (SC CJI, 2019–2024) – In the 2019 Ayodhya verdict, Chandrachud was on the majority bench. Afterward he revealed that while deciding the case he “sat before the Ram deity and told him he needs to find a solution,” adding “if you have faith, God will always find a way”3 . These remarks (reported in Oct 2024) show his personal faith entering the adjudication process. They drew notice for implying religious devotion in a landmark Hindu-temple case. (Chandrachud also recently visited the new Ram temple and offered prayers.)
Justice R.F. Nariman (Ex-Judge SC, dissent in 2019 Ayodhya case; lecture 2024) – Though on the majority bench for Ayodhya, Nariman later criticized the decision. In a Dec 2024 lecture he called the verdict a “great travesty of justice” for failing to uphold secularism4 . He noted the Court found that historically Hindus had repeatedly broken the law by placing idols in the mosque, so “one would have thought they will rebuild the mosque” – yet instead the final remedy was to hand the site to Hindus. He termed it unjust that “secularism was not given its due by these judgments”4 . (His comments underscore that even among judges, the Ayodhya outcome was seen by some as favoring the Hindu side over secular principles.)
Justice Shekhar K. Yadav (Allahabad HC, 2024) – In Dec 2024, Yadav spoke at a VHP event that “India would function ‘according to the wishes of the majority community (Hindus) living in the country.’” He stated bluntly: “the law, in fact, works according to the majority… Only what benefits the welfare and happiness of the majority (Hindus) will be accepted by the law”5 . These public remarks (to Muslims) led the Supreme Court to seek details for possible judicial action. Yadav’s speech was widely condemned as communal. (He also used a derogatory term “kathmulle” for Muslims in the same speech6 .)
Justice R. Anand Venkatesh (Madras HC, 2015) – In a 2015 temple dispute case, this judge wrote: “A Temple must create an environment to subside the ego of a person…on the contrary it is becoming a breeding ground for clash of ego … In such cases, the best course of action will be to close down such temples so that peace and normalcy is restored in the locality. It is a paradox that closure of a Temple actually leads to peace.”7 . This unusual order (reported by HinduPost) sparked outrage among Hindu groups. The judge also separately ruled in April 2015 that a local Hindu shrine (Thalaivetti Muniyappan) was actually a Buddhist statue and ordered Hindu rituals at it to cease8 . Both actions were decried by Hindu activists and media as anti-Hindu.
Chief Justice S.K. Kait (Madhya Pradesh HC, 2024) – In late 2024 controversy, reports claimed CJ Suresh Kumar Kait (a Buddhist) had demolished a Hanuman temple on the High Court grounds, allegedly to “rejoice his Buddhist faith.” News reports (HinduRights.org) say ex-CBI Chief M.N. Rao and the MP Bar Association demanded the temple’s reconstruction9 . The blog HinduExistence detailed these claims, noting that former CJs including S.A. Bobde used to worship there, and called the demolition a “symptom of Buddhist intolerance”9 10 . (These accounts are from Hindu activist media – official status of the incident is disputed. Still, it highlights a judge’s personal religion affecting a Hindu shrine.)
Justice Kurian Joseph (Ex-SC, public speech 2024) – Judge Kurian Joseph publicly suggested the Supreme Court drop its motto “yatodharma⋅statoḥ jaay (“where there is Dharma, there is victory”). He argued “Dharma as stipulated in the Hindu fold, is not always the truth…and thus does not deserve to be the motto” and that “the truth is the Constitution; Dharma, not always.”11 . In other words, he implied Hindu concept of Dharma shouldn’t guide the Court. His remarks at a legal seminar were criticized by Hindu commentators (see Dharmadispatch) as reflecting ignorance of Sanskrit lore11 .
Other notables: In related context, Justice Markandey Katju (former SC judge) publicly criticized the 1995 “Hindutva is way of life” judgment, calling it “duplicity”12 13 . Likewise, some retired judges (e.g. Madan Lokur) have labeled certain judges or decisions as “unworthy” or overly pro-majority.
Summary of trends: Many Supreme Court rulings (1950s–1990s) affirmed secularism and treated Hinduism/Hindutva as a broad cultural tradition, not inherently supremacist2 1 . However, controversies have arisen when judges’ personal beliefs became public. For example, a CJI’s revealing of prayer in Ayodhya case3 and HC judges calling for closing temples7 or favoring the Hindu majority5 have led critics to question secular neutrality.
Nepotism & “Ideology” Allegations
Right-leaning commentators frequently allege nepotism in the judiciary’s appointments and ideological bias:
Alleged Nepotism: An OpIndia analysis (Aug 2022) argued that ~38% of sitting SC judges had family links to judges or politicians – e.g. 12 of 32 then-judges were related to a former judge or leader14 . It noted that two upcoming CJI-designates are sons of past CJIs, and listed many judges with judicial-politician relatives (e.g. D.Y. Chandrachud is son of CJI Y.V. Chandrachud; U.U. Lalit is son of a Bombay HC judge)14 15 . The article claimed the collegium system favors such connections. (These figures come from a partisan site and should be checked; proponents of collegium argue selections are merit-based.)
Judicial “Secular” Bias: Some sources allege a prevalent “anti-Hindu” ideology. For instance, activist blogs StopHinduDvesha and HinduPost argue that secularism has been weaponized to disadvantage Hindu institutions. The StopHinduDvesha site (part 1 and 2) contends that minority rights cases have “assaulted Hindus” under the guise of secularism (though we lack direct quotes here). A HinduPost opinion piece contrasted Justice Venkatesh’s temple-closure remarks (above) with numerous instances of church governance violence, implying judges give Christians/Muslims more deference16 . These interpretations are disputed by mainstream analysts, but reflect a perception among some Hindutva proponents that the judiciary favors minorities.
Comparative Rulings: The judiciary has also handled many non-Hindu religious cases. For example, courts have upheld Muslim personal law and Christian minority institution rights under Articles 25–30. By contrast, some Hindu temple administration disputes (e.g. temple-state management laws) have been upheld as secular regulatory acts17 . Critics say this is inconsistent: e.g. Seshammal v. TN (1972) upheld government regulation of temple management, whereas in Sardar Syedna Taher Saiffuddin (1962) the Court struck down a Bombay law infringing Dawoodi Bohra religious practice18 19 . (In sum, Hindu places of worship have seen both protection of rituals and state takeover of administration, depending on context. Minority institutions (church schools, mosques) often receive constitutional safeguards.)
Summary
In sum, the record is mixed. High Court and Supreme Court judges have on record both affirming Hinduism’s pluralistic character1 2 and making controversial anti-Hindu remarks. Recent examples (Justice Yadav’s pro-majority speech5 , Justice Venkatesh’s temple-order7 , Justice Kait’s alleged temple demolition9 , Justice Kurian’s “Dharma not truth” comment11 ) have sparked debates about judicial bias. On the other hand, top courts have explicitly held that “Hindutva is a way of life” and not inherently communal2 , and Hindu plaintiffs succeed in many cases (e.g. SC granted the Ayodhya site to Hindus in 2019).
Questions of who “trains” or “influences” judges are largely speculative. Many judges study law at elite Indian or foreign universities, but we have no documentary evidence of any systematic “anti-Hindu indoctrination.” Likewise, while familial connections in the judiciary exist (as in many professions), the extent of nepotism is debated14 . What the sources do show is that a number of current and former judges have publicly expressed strong views on Hinduism – some positive (tolerant, inclusive), some negative (closing temples, majoritarian pride) – and these statements feed into a political debate over the courts’ secularism.
Sources: We have compiled quotes and reports from court decisions and media (Times of India, India Today, VOA, Hindupost, Hinduexistence, OpIndia, etc.) on judges’ statements about Hinduism or religion 1 2 5 7 3 4 11 14 9 . These illustrate the range of judicial voices on the subject.
1 2 How Supreme Court viewed words ‘Hindu’, ‘Hinduism’ & ‘Hindutva’ in rulings | India News - The Times of India
3 Sat before God, prayed for solution: Chief Justice Chandrachud on Ayodhya dispute - India Today
4 ‘Travesty of justice’: Former SC judge on top court’s Ram mandir judgement | India News - Times of India
5 6 India’s Supreme Court takes note of judge’s ‘communal’ speech
https://www.voanews.com/a/india-s-supreme-court-takes-note-of-judge-s-communal-speech/7901590.html
7 8 16 “Closing temples leads to peace”, Judge’s remark invites criticism
https://hindupost.in/dharma-religion/closing-temples-leads-to-peace-judges-remark-invites-criticism/
9 10 Buddhist CJ of MP HC demolished Hindu Temple in his Official Residence. Fast Restoration Demanded. | Struggle for Hindu Existence
11 A Dharma Primer for Former Judge Kurian Joseph
https://www.dharmadispatch.in/commentary/a-dharma-primer-for-former-judge-kurian-joseph
12 13 How a Single Judgment Converted India from a Secular to a Hindu State | by Justice Markandey Katju | Medium
14 15 As PM Modi talked about nepotism in institutions, here is how the judiciary is deeply affected by it
https://www.opindia.com/2022/08/pm-modi-nepotism-indian-institutions-judiciary-deeply-affected/
17 18 19 Essential Religious Practices: Court in Review - Supreme Court Observer
https://www.scobserver.in/journal/essential-religious-practices-court-in-review/