Did the SC Reject a PIL for Lord Vishnu's Idol Reconstruction?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Supreme Court's dismissal of a PIL seeking intervention for the reconstruction of a beheaded Lord Vishnu idol at Khajuraho raises questions about cultural preservation and governmental responsibility towards heritage sites. This case highlights ongoing neglect and the intersection of law, culture, and faith.
Key Takeaways
- The SC ruled that the matter of idol reconstruction falls under ASI's jurisdiction.
- The beheaded idol of Lord Vishnu is part of the historic Khajuraho temple complex.
- Long-standing neglect of cultural sites raises accountability issues.
- The petitioner made multiple attempts to draw attention to the temple's condition.
- Conservation regulations play a critical role in restoration efforts.
New Delhi, Sep 16 (NationPress) The Supreme Court on Tuesday decided not to consider a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought judicial action for the restoration of a 7-foot-long beheaded idol of Lord Vishnu located at the Javari Temple, part of the renowned Khajuraho temple complex in Madhya Pradesh.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih expressed that the matter falls within the purview of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and not the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
"We are not inclined to entertain this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed," the bench stated.
The petitioner, the National President of the National Veer Kisan Majdoor Dal, underscored the persistent neglect of the temples by both the Union and Madhya Pradesh governments, despite numerous representations.
"The temples of Khajuraho, built by the Chandravanshi kings, historically served as a ‘Paathshaala’. However, despite 77 years post-independence, the authorities have not taken adequate measures for their enhancement and reconstruction, depriving people of their fundamental right to worship," mentioned the petition filed through Nuli & Nuli.
The petition also noted the petitioner’s previous attempts to bring this issue to the government's attention, including letters sent to the Union Home Minister in 2019 and 2020 requesting the temples' reconstruction.
"The petitioner and other advocates have engaged in several protests at Jantar Mantar, submitted memorandums to the Central government, expressed their demands to the administration, and organized ‘Jaagran’ campaigns near the temple. Yet, despite these persistent efforts, the 7-foot-long beheaded idol of Lord Vishnu remains mutilated to this day," stated the petition. It argued that the inability to restore the idol and the series of temples infringes upon the religious sentiments of devotees.
In March 2023, the Superintending Archaeologist responded, stating that while the conservation of the Khajuraho temples is under the ASI's jurisdiction, replacing the 7-foot-long beheaded idol of Lord Vishnu in the Javari Temple would breach conservation regulations.
Point of View
It is imperative to recognize the significance of the SC's decision. While the ruling reflects legal boundaries, it also emphasizes the necessity for proactive measures in cultural restoration. The long-standing neglect of such historical sites calls for greater accountability from governing bodies to ensure the preservation of India's rich cultural heritage.
NationPress
20/09/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the Supreme Court's decision regarding the PIL?
The Supreme Court dismissed the PIL seeking judicial intervention for the reconstruction of the beheaded Lord Vishnu idol, stating it falls under the jurisdiction of the ASI.
Who filed the PIL?
The PIL was filed by the National President of the National Veer Kisan Majdoor Dal.
What are the historical implications of the Khajuraho temples?
The Khajuraho temples, built by the Chandravanshi kings, served as significant cultural and educational centers in ancient times.
What actions did the petitioner take prior to filing the PIL?
The petitioner engaged in protests, submitted memorandums, and sent letters to the Union Home Minister requesting action on the temple restorations.
Why was the idol's restoration deemed not permissible?
The Superintending Archaeologist indicated that replacing the idol would violate conservation rules.
