In yet another episode that has fueled charges of judicial hostility towards Hindu beliefs, former Supreme Court judge Rohinton Nariman courted fresh controversy with his remarks at the KM Bashir Memorial Lecture, organized by the Press Club of Thiruvananthapuram on September 1. Instead of answering a simple question about faith with dignity, he mocked Hindu sacredness by equating it with ridicule.

The question came from an audience member who asked about ex-CJI D.Y. Chandrachud’s statement that he had prayed for guidance before delivering the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid verdict in 2019. Rather than respecting Chandrachud’s personal spiritual act, Nariman ridiculed it, saying: “Whether with divine or bovine intervention or any other kind of intervention, if a judge delivers a judgment, he is violating his oath to the Constitution. You (judges) have to live only by your oath to the Constitution and the laws. And when you live by your oath to the Constitution and the laws, you certainly bring in your own morality. That’s about as far as it goes.”

This crude choice of words revealed not only his disapproval of Chandrachud but also his contempt for Hindu reverence. Hindus consider cows sacred, yet Nariman tossed the word “bovine” into his mockery, equating it with superstition. Such language from a former judge is deeply inappropriate—it diminishes faith and portrays Hindu symbols as laughable. Instead of separating law and belief respectfully, he chose to scorn.

His comments gain further weight when seen alongside another controversy the previous day, when Chief Justice B.R. Gavai sarcastically told a petitioner seeking the restoration of a mutilated Krishna idol desecrated by Mughal invaders: “Go and pray to God instead.” Together, these remarks highlight a disturbing trend of judicial figures treating Hindu devotion as something to mock rather than protect.

Nariman, ironically, gave this lecture under the theme “Fraternity in a Secular State: The Protection of Cultural Rights and Duties.” He emphasized that secularism existed in the Constitution even before the 42nd Amendment, saying: “It’s a misnomer to say that secularism was introduced only by the 42nd amendment. Some part of it was always already there… Now secularism according to me is an absolute must as a stepping stone towards achieving fraternity. You cannot have fraternity in a theocratic state.”

These lofty words stand hollow in light of his disdainful remarks. True secularism respects all faiths equally; it does not weaponize the idea of fraternity to sneer at one religion’s sacred traditions. Nariman’s words failed that very standard.

He even used the opportunity to promote his book An Ode to Fraternity, claiming to have studied multiple religions. But instead of demonstrating deeper respect, his lecture showed arrogance and bias, exposing the contradiction between his supposed scholarship and his public mockery.

By making faith a punchline, Nariman did more than express an opinion—he deepened mistrust in the judiciary, especially among Hindus who saw his words as confirmation of systemic bias.

Retired Supreme Court judge Rohinton Nariman labelled Hindus demanding temple as ‘dictators-tyrants’

If Nariman’s September remarks sounded mocking, his earlier statements in December 2024 went even further, directly attacking Hindus seeking justice for their temples. Addressing an event hosted by the Ahmadi Foundation, he harshly criticized the five-judge bench that delivered the 2019 Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi verdict. He claimed the ruling in favor of the Hindu side was a betrayal of secularism, bluntly calling it a “mockery of justice.”

Nariman did not stop there. In words that shocked many Hindus, he declared: “We find today, like hydra heads popping up all over the country, there is suit after suit filed all over the place. Now not only concerning mosques but also dargahs. All this can lead to communal tension and disharmony, contrary to what is envisaged in both our Constitution and the Places of Worship Act. This very Constitution Bench spends five pages on it and says that in secularism, which is a part of the Basic Structure, you cannot look backwards, you have to look forward… Every religious place of worship is frozen until 15th August 1947. Now, anybody who tries to change this, those suits will stand dismissed.”

By comparing Hindus filing lawful petitions to “hydra heads”, Nariman villainized an entire community of devotees seeking only judicial remedy. He effectively painted them as threats to harmony, while ignoring centuries of desecration and destruction their temples faced. For Hindus, who pursued legal avenues with patience and respect for the Constitution, being labeled as tyrants by a retired judge was not just insulting—it was dehumanizing.

He went further to argue that the Places of Worship Act, 1991 must be strictly enforced, blocking any future suits that sought reclamation of destroyed temples. In his rhetoric, secularism meant silencing Hindus and asking them to abandon their history. Instead of acknowledging the legitimacy of their claims, Nariman implied that the Hindu side winning the Ayodhya case itself was unjust.

This attitude reveals a troubling double standard. While Nariman framed his argument as a defense of secularism, in reality he was advocating a system where Hindu grievances are permanently shut down, while other communities’ sensitivities are preserved. His choice of words—“mockery of justice” and “hydra heads”—was not reasoned legal critique, but charged rhetoric intended to stigmatize.

By dismissing the Hindu struggle for reclaiming their sacred spaces as communal mischief, Nariman turned constitutional interpretation into a blunt instrument against one faith. For a judge once sworn to uphold impartiality, such language betrays bias and strips Hindus of dignity. His speeches, cloaked in the language of secularism, expose a persistent hostility to Hindu aspirations.