On 8 October 2025, Noida Police questioned social media influencer Ajeet Bharti over a recent post on ‘X’, following a separate incident in which a lawyer allegedly attempted to throw an object (shoe) at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai. Bharti clarified that he was not arrested and was only summoned for inquiry. He was first taken to Sector 58 police station and later to the DCP office at 12/22 outpost for questioning.
The questioning follows the courtroom incident, where a 71-year-old lawyer attempted to hurl a shoe at CJI Gavai, reportedly upset over remarks regarding the restoration of a Vishnu idol in Khajuraho.
Ajeet Bharti was summoned, detained for questioning, but eventually released – all for questioning the judiciary for his comments on Hindus? Let’s take a look at how the judiciary has given judgements related to Hindus, Hindu Dharma, Hindu festivals in the past.
List of Instances Where Indian Judiciary Upholds ‘Free Speech’, Advises Against Hyper-Sensitivity in Hindu Religious Sentiment Cases
In a series of rulings from 2014 to 2025, various courts across India have consistently dismissed petitions alleging hurt to Hindu religious sentiments, often advising petitioners to cultivate a more tolerant outlook. This report details eight such instances where the judiciary emphasized the importance of free speech and artistic expression, cautioning against the overuse of legal remedies for subjective grievances.
#1 Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Restore Beheaded Khajuraho Idol – 16 September 2025
The Supreme Court on 16 September 2025, declined to hear a plea seeking restoration of a 7-foot beheaded idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari Temple in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh. A bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai told petitioner Rakesh Dalal — who claimed the idol was damaged during Mughal invasions — that the issue fell under the Archaeological Survey of India’s jurisdiction. The bench remarked, “Go and pray to Lord Vishnu,” refusing intervention. Dalal had argued that the government’s failure to act violated devotees’ right to worship despite decades of appeals and protests.
#2 Baidyanath Shivling Logo Case Dismissed – 12 September 2025
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a plea by Meghna Khullar seeking the removal of a Shivling image from Baidyanath Ayurveda’s logo, citing potential disrespect. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry questioned the petitioner’s sensitivity, remarking, “Why are you being so sensitive about these things?”. The court noted that existing legal remedies were sufficient and refused to intervene in the matter, allowing the company to retain its established logo without any changes.
#3 Rajasthan HC Upholds Academic Freedom on Ram Janmabhoomi Question – 10 July 2025
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition challenging a university exam question on the Ram Janmabhoomi verdict, ruling that academic discussion or criticism of judicial decisions does not constitute a religious offence under Section 295A IPC without malicious intent. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that critical analysis is integral to legal education and must not be curbed by subjective sentiments. The petitioner had claimed the question hurt religious feelings, but the court found no deliberate provocation. It emphasised that fair criticism is protected under Article 19(1)(a) when reasoned and not contemptuous, calling the plea “misconceived.”
#4 Court Chides YouTuber Over Holi Remark – 15 July 2025
The Bombay High Court rebuked YouTuber Vikas Pathak (Hindustani Bhau) for his petition against filmmaker Farah Khan. The case concerned Khan’s description of Holi as a “festival of chhapris” on a reality show. Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad asked the petitioner why he was “so sensitive” and stressed that the judiciary should not be burdened with such petitions. The court dismissed the plea, underscoring that not every personal dislike or offensive remark warrants legal action, especially in the context of public discourse and entertainment.
#5 Varanasi Court Dismisses Plea Against Rahul Gandhi Over Lord Ram Remark – 27 May 2025
A Varanasi MP-MLA court dismissed a petition against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for allegedly calling Lord Ram a “mythological and fictional figure” during his speech at Brown University in May 2025. Advocate Harishankar Pandey had sought FIR registration, accusing Gandhi of hurting Hindu sentiments and spreading hate speech. However, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neeraj Kumar Tripathi ruled the plea “non-maintainable,” citing the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) requirement of prior government or district magistrate sanction. Pandey said he would seek permission and refile the case. The court took no further action against Gandhi.
#6 Allahabad HC Rejects Bid to Ban Book on Gayatri – 12 March 2025
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a religious group seeking a ban on the book “Tathakathit Gayatri Devi Mantra Ki Vastavikta”, which claimed Goddess Gayatri is fictitious. The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra noted that an identical petition had been dismissed in 2016. The court ruled that re-filing the same claim was inadmissible, reinforcing the legal precedent that repeated petitions on settled issues cannot be entertained, thereby upholding the publication’s right to circulate.
#7 Kailash Kher’s Song Didn’t Outrage Sentiments Says HC – 12 March 2025
The Bombay High Court quashed a criminal case against singer Kailash Kher, filed by a devotee who alleged that his song “Babam Bam” and its music video, featuring scantily clad dancers, hurt his religious sentiments as a Shiva devotee. Justices Bharati Dangre and Shyam C. Chandak established a key principle, stating that “every action disliked by a class [does not amount to] outrage of religious sentiments.” The ruling protected artistic expression from subjective claims of offence, setting a significant legal standard for similar cases.
#8 Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking FIR Against Udhayanidhi Stalin Over ‘Sanatan Dharma’ Remarks – 27 January 2025
The Supreme Court on 27 January 2025, dismissed a plea seeking FIRs against Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin and former Union Minister A. Raja for their remarks calling for the “eradication of Sanatan Dharma.” A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale declined to entertain the petition, with the counsel withdrawing it to pursue other legal remedies. The Court observed that such pleas were turning it into a “police station.” Similar petitions had earlier been filed nationwide after Stalin’s controversial “Sanatan Dharma Eradication” speech in September 2023.
#9 Supreme Court Shields Adipurush, Warns of Falling Tolerance – 21 July 2023
The Supreme Court rejected pleas to revoke the censor certificate of the film ‘Adipurush’ and stayed proceedings against its makers in the Allahabad High Court. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that “everyone is touchy about everything now” and warned that societal tolerance for movies and books is steadily declining. The bench stated that a certification cannot be withdrawn lightly, defending the film’s release and highlighting the need for a more resilient public discourse in the face of creative works.
#10 Tolerance is a Hindu Tenet: Madras HC – 3 February 2022
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a petition challenging the conversion of a house into a church in Kanyakumari, which had raised concerns about noise from loudspeakers. Justice C.V. Karthikeyan emphasized that tolerance is a basic tenet of every Hindu. The court upheld the constitutional right to practice and profess one’s religion, asserting that objections rooted in religious intolerance are unacceptable in a secular nation like India, thereby promoting communal harmony.
#11 “Get a Sense of Humour,” Says Bombay HC – 17 September 2018
The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR filed by petitioners alleging that a social media post hurt Hindu sentiment. Justices TV Nalawade and Vibha Kankanwadi emphasized the need for humour and tolerance in society. The court ruled that the content in question did not violate Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (outraging religious feelings) and upheld the principles of free speech. It also cautioned against the misuse of such criminal cases to stifle expression and settle personal scores.
#12 SC on PK Movie: “Don’t Watch It If You Dislike” – 14 August 2014
The Supreme Court of India dismissed a PIL seeking a ban on the movie ‘PK’, which alleged that certain scenes and the poster hurt religious sentiments. Chief Justice R.M. Lodha stated that such matters fall under the realm of artistic expression. In a landmark statement, the bench advised, “If you don’t like it, don’t watch it.” The court upheld the freedom of expression in cinema and allowed the film’s release without any restrictions, setting a crucial precedent for handling objections to creative content.
Last Word
For over a decade, the judiciary has lectured Hindus on tolerance, restraint, and humour — but when a Hindu influencer questions that very double standard, the system suddenly forgets its own sermons on free expression. The irony couldn’t be sharper: free speech thrives only until it questions the arbiters of freedom themselves.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.