NYC Times Square Rally Against CJI Gavai and Other Judges for Blatant Anti-Hindu Bias with Deep-Rooted Corruption Linked to Anti-Hindu Organizations
hitaya
From: Stop Hindu Genocide <stophind...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 8:51 PM
Subject: NYC Times Square rally against CJI Gavai & other Judges blatant anti-Hindu bias with deep rooted corruption linked to anti-Hindu Orgs
To: Stop Hindu Genocide <stophind...@gmail.com>
Press Release – NYC Times Square Rally Against CJI Gavai and Other Judges for Blatant Anti-Hindu Bias with Deep-Rooted Corruption Linked to Anti-Hindu Organizations
NYC, Nov 8, 2025: Hindu Americans, with the support of Hindus worldwide, organized a massive digital billboard campaign in New York’s Times Square (Duffy Square) on Saturday, November 8, 2025. The campaign aims to express the community’s deep frustration at the blatantly bigoted statements made by Indian Supreme Court Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and to demand that he apologize and resign from his post. His recent remarks, deeply offensive to Hindus globally (as detailed in the open letter below), are part of a larger pattern of certain Indian judges attacking the Hindu faith over the years which are funded by questionable anti-Hindu sources.
In addition, a public rally was held at the same location from 12:00 PM to 3:00 PM on Nov 8. The rally highlighted the pattern of judicial bigotry against Hindus in India—particularly within the highest court—reflected in various controversial judgments over the years. Organizers and participants intend to send a clear message that Hindus worldwide will not tolerate insult and injustice from those sworn to uphold justice.
“If the judiciary insults the faith of over a billion Hindus worldwide, then they need to be prepared to receive the same in kind.”
Despite many appeals to the Indian judiciary to reconsider its gross insensitivity toward Hindu sentiments, judges have continued to deliver judgments reeking of bias. Examples include the denial of justice to former BJP spokeswoman Nupur Sharma, the commuting of the death sentences of brutal child rapists, the meddling in Hindu religious practices such as the Sabarimala temple rituals, and the granting of bail to hardcore terrorists whose victims are primarily Hindu. In response to this consistent pattern, the diaspora protesters will display a series of stark banners at the rally to drive home their point.
Below is shameless incoming CJI Surya Kant Das, who recently spoke about free speech at a journalists’ meeting, is now demanding additional security for judges—security he deliberately denied to Nupur Sharma, who merely asked for multiple FIRs filed by Islamist extremists to be clubbed together despite receiving over 70,000 threats to her life.”
It must be noted that the same judiciary which remains extremely sensitive to the sentiments of other faiths has been deliberately insensitive to Hindus. This double standard, protesters argued, has roots in India’s opaque collegium system of judge selection—an in-group that perpetuates a certain ideological mindset—compounded by corruption and foreign influence funneling money to anti-Hindu causes.
The Times Square billboard advertisements and rally banners are deliberately outrageous in tone. The intent is to show that if you insult the faith of over a billion Hindus, you should be prepared to be exposed and criticized in equal measure. The provocative messaging reflects the community’s boiling frustration with judicial bigotry against Hinduism. (Notably, even in India, a Supreme Court lawyer recently threw a shoe at the Chief Justice in outrage.)
The open letter to Chief Justice Gavai (included below) explains in detail the larger issues that prompted this protest. Hindu organizations worldwide plan to replicate this effort in other cities until the judiciary issues a sincere apology to Hindus and takes concrete steps to remedy its anti-Hindu bias.
For further information or media inquiries, please contact StopHind...@gmail.com.
Open Letter to Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai
Dear Judge Gavai,
You occupy one of India’s most prestigious constitutional offices, serving as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. However, given the blatant bigotry evident in your recent comments against Hinduism, we cannot bring ourselves to address you with the honor normally due to your position. We hope this open letter reaches you—and your colleagues in the Indian judiciary—as it details how, over the years, the judiciary has hurt the sentiments of Hindus and denigrated the 10,000-year-old Sanatana Dharma practiced by over a billion people in India and worldwide.
To recap, on September 16, 2025, during a hearing of a plea by Supreme Court lawyer Rakesh Dalal (who sought the restoration of a beheaded Lord Vishnu idol in Khajuraho—an idol destroyed centuries ago by Islamic invaders), you mocked the petitioner’s faith. In response to his appeal, you sarcastically stated:
“Go and ask the deity himself to do something. If you are saying that you are a strong devotee of Lord Vishnu, then you pray and do some meditation. In the meantime, if you are not averse to Shaivism, you can go and worship there. There is a very big linga of Shiva, one of the biggest in Khajuraho.”
This flippant remark was nothing short of an insult to core Hindu beliefs. You essentially mocked the reverence Vaishnavites and Shaivites have for their deities, even alluding to a derogatory colonial-era trope that reduces the sacred Shiva Linga to a mere phallic symbol. Would any Supreme Court judge in a respectable democracy dare to openly mock the majority’s faith (or, for that matter, any faith) the way you did? Such conduct is unbecoming of your office. The outrage you sparked has been well documented — even an editor of OpIndia (a major Indian news portal) dissected your comments and their implications in a video editorial.
We urge you to watch OpIndia Editor Nupur Sharma’s remarks (linked here: https://youtu.be/9m09VeohTLY?si=hrC_ICdiegNwelTg), which have resonated with Hindus in India and across the world. She recounted the incident and highlighted the judiciary’s hypocrisy in no uncertain terms:
YouTubeVideo
TRANSCRIPT
“Let me tell you a little story [3]. Almost exactly a year ago, on the 25th of September 2024, a Supreme Court bench passed a seminal order [3]. The bench said, "Casual observations may reflect a certain degree of individual bias particularly when they're likely to be perceived as being directed against a particular gender or a community. Courts therefore have to be careful not to make comments in the course of judicial proceedings which may be construed as being misogynistic or prejudicial to any segment of our society" [3].
The bench made these observations because a Karnataka High Court judge had called a Muslim-dominant area of Bangalore "Pakistan" [3]. This is an objective fact by all accounts [3] — there are several areas in India which mirror Pakistan, not because of the majority Muslim population, but because of the violent and jihadi conduct of those Muslims [3]. There are areas like Para that were declared an ISIS territory [3]; there are areas where Sharia courts operate with little oversight; and there are areas where women are lashed in Taliban style [8]. There are other areas where Hindus are attacked and massacred merely for being Hindus [8]. What should one call these areas if not Pakistan? [8]
The court, however, was furious [8]. The bench observed that justice should not only be rendered as an objective fact but also perceived to be rendered by every segment of society [8]. This essentially means that even if a judgment is legally sound, the parties who approach the court should feel like justice has been delivered, and that would only be possible if the judiciary is believed to be fair and unbiased [8]. Even though the Karnataka High Court judge was not off the mark, the observation by the Supreme Court bench is fair; it makes sense [8]. The court should indeed stick to the law and its interpretation [8].
What makes the judgment interesting is who delivered it [8]. The bench was made up of five judges; two of them were Justice Surya Kant and our current Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai [8]. Do you remember who Justice Surya Kant is? The very judge who vilified Nupur Sharma [9]. The very judge who dismissed the threats of gang rape and beheading against her by saying, "It's okay, threats are there every day" [9]. The very judge who, along with Justice Pardiwala, said it was Nupur Sharma who set India on fire with her comments — not the Muslim man whom she was responding to, and certainly not the Muslim jihadis who beheaded Kanhaiya Lal and flaunted their blood-soaked machete [9]. It was Nupur Sharma’s "loose tongue," according to Justice Surya Kant [9]. In other words, Justice Surya Kant vilified the victim because she was a Hindu [9]. He excused the perpetrators because the ones going on a rampage were supposedly aggrieved Muslims [9]. Was justice delivered, do you think? [9] Was justice even perceived to be delivered? [9] Or should justice only be rendered — and perceived to be rendered — when uncomfortable facts are stated about the Muslim community? [9] But I digress [9].”
As Nupur Sharma highlighted, the other judge on that bench urging “moderation” was you, Justice B.R. Gavai [1]. Incidentally, you are celebrated as the first Buddhist and only the second Dalit ever to serve as CJI [1] – and you yourself admitted that your elevation to the Supreme Court was to ensure Dalit representation [1]. Yet on 16 September 2025, when a Hindu petitioner begged the Court to restore a desecrated Vishnu murti beheaded by invaders long ago [1], you dismissed him to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and then chose to sneer, “Go and ask the deity itself to do something. Now you say you're a staunch devotee of Lord Vishnu, so go and pray for Hindus” [1].
That remark cut deeper than any centuries-old wound from a Mughal sword [1]. It echoed the taunt of every bigot who ever asked, “If your gods are real, why didn’t they save you?” [1]. This tired Hinduphobic trope, weaponized for generations by Islamist tyrants and today by modern secularists, just found resounding endorsement from the Chief Justice of India [1] – the very same CJI Gavai who not long ago preached that judges should moderate their words [4], and that justice must not only be delivered but also perceived to be delivered [4].
Outraged Hindus took to social media en masse to voice their anger [4]. A common refrain was: “Would he ever say something like this to a Muslim — tell them to go pray to Allah for relief?” [4] We all know the answer: No, he would not [4]. And why? Because everyone likes their head to remain attached to their neck [4]. This asymmetry in judicial “courage” stems from a stark reality: minorities in India enforce their sensitivities on the streets, whereas Hindus, by and large, seek redress in the courts [4]. When Muslims feel insulted, they exercise a “street veto” — erupting in protests, blocking roads, and chanting “Sar Tan Se Juda” (infamously calling for beheadings) [4]. Judges like you know this full well. That 2024 bench’s plea for moderation wasn’t just about abstract fairness [4]; it was a nod to realpolitik, acknowledging that those who brandish swords must not feel provoked by a judge’s words. On the other hand, the judiciary has long taken Hindus for granted, assuming we will quietly endure any insult [2].
Frankly, we don’t care to speculate whether any court would ever tell a Muslim to pray to Allah for justice — it’s a hypothetical scenario that would simply never occur [2]. What we do care about is the reality that in Bharat (the ancestral homeland of the Hindus), the judicial system has become deeply Hinduphobic, finding ever new ways to insult Hindu beliefs with impunity. You, Justice Gavai, could have simply redirected the petitioner to the appropriate authority (ASI). Instead, you mocked Hindus and their faith, parroting the very tropes jihadists use to deride us [2]. Perhaps you assumed Hindus would remain silent, as usual. After all, Hindus fear contempt-of-court proceedings almost as much as they fear a jihadi’s machete [2].
This time, however, Hindus did not remain silent. The backlash was swift, and when the public heat became unbearable [2], you offered a half-hearted “clarification.” Tellingly, you didn’t find it necessary to actually apologize — Hindus are not Muslims, after all, so why would a Chief Justice bother apologizing to them? [2] Instead, you claimed that your comments were misrepresented on social media and that you “respect all religions” [2]. You insisted your remarks were made in the context of the ASI’s supervision of the temple site [5]. But you failed to explain how mocking a devotee’s faith was relevant to an ASI jurisdictional point [5]. You failed to explain how insulting Lord Vishnu devotees demonstrates that you “respect all religions” [5]. In fact, you didn’t explain a thing — you simply tried to deflect and move on [5].
The fact is, Mr. Gavai, you do not respect all religions equally. The Indian judiciary as a whole does not, and you are very much a product of this system that believes Hindus can be insulted with impunity [5]. You, Mr. Gavai, are a product of the same judicial culture that produced a Justice Fakhruddin (alias A.M. Baharul Islam) — the High Court judge who openly said Hindus have no power against Muslims [5], even telling a Muslim accused “You come with a pistol, I’m here; I’ll take care of everything.” [5] You, Mr. Gavai, are a product of the same system that produced Justices Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala, who earned praise from the Taliban for their insidious comments castigating Nupur Sharma in 2022 [5]. You, Mr. Gavai, are a product of the same system that produced Justice K.M. Joseph, who could barely contain a smirk when the genocide of Hindus was mentioned in his courtroom [6]. And you, Mr. Gavai, are a product of the same system that produced Justice Madan Lokur, who pissed on the memory of a Hindu victim (the late Ankit Sharma) by shielding the jihadi instigators responsible for that young man’s lynching [6].
In sum, Mr. Gavai, you are the heir of a system created by India’s colonial-era elites — the brown sahibs and their white masters — who sought to “civilize” what they deemed the “dirty Hindus.” They wanted to drain every last drop of life and pride from the Hindu world, to harvest “heathen” souls and sacrifice them at the altar of their One True God [6]. They worked to make Hindus feel ashamed of their language, their civilization, their faith, and even the very soil of Bharat — a land soaked with the blood of Hindu martyrs who fought and died for it. Those colonial overlords and their native collaborators viewed Hindus as barbarians, as mere fodder and mortar, as sacrificial lambs [6].
It is a myth, Your Dishonor, that India shed the vestiges of its colonial past in one magical midnight stroke of 1947 [6]. The truth is, we merely dressed up colonial tyranny in brown robes — and you didn’t even bother to change that robe [7]. You still don the same black colonial-era gown, which you now wield as a cloak for your colonial hangover and your inherited disdain for the “heathens” of this land [7].
You are not truly sorry for your anti-Hindu bias, Mr. Gavai, because the system that systematically encourages and rewards Hinduphobia is the very system that draped that black coat over your shoulders [7]. It empowered you to spread hate against Hindus under the guise of dispensing justice [7]. You, sir, have no moral right to sit in judgment — not now, not ever [7].
Blatant anti-Hindu bigotry, High level Corruption, Zero accountability to Indian Citizens demands the complete dismantling of current Judiciary
The numerous instances of blatant bigotry by the Indian judiciary against the Hindu faith point to a cancer that must be addressed at the institutional level. Some might even say the institution, as it stands today, needs to be dismantled and reformed from the ground up. While Nupur Sharma’s commentary captured the pain and anger of Hindus worldwide, the examples she gave are only a tiny fraction of the problem. Below, we highlight just a few additional cases that illustrate how the judiciary has often acted as an oppressor towards India’s Hindu majority:
- Dahi Handi Youth Festival Restrictions (2016): The Supreme Court upheld an 18-year minimum age and a 20-foot maximum human pyramid height for the traditional Dahi Handi festival in Maharashtra.
Bench: Justices A. R. Dave, U. U. Lalit, and L. Nageswara Rao.
Stated Rationale: Public safety and the fundamental Right to Life (Article 21).
Critique: Selective cultural intervention and paternalistic overreach, infringing on Hindus’ Article 25 right to freely practice their religion.
Perceived Bias: Many suspect the real intent was to discourage the Kshatriya (warrior) spirit among Hindu youth, thereby fostering a more submissive society. - Diwali Firecracker Ban (2018): In Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, the Court imposed a ban and severe restrictions on Diwali firecrackers, citing pollution concerns.
Bench: Justices A. K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan.
Stated Rationale: Environmental protection, public health, and the right to clean air (Article 21).
Critique: Disproportionate targeting of a Hindu festival—devaluing Hindus’ Article 25 rights—while largely ignoring other major pollution sources.
Perceived Bias: This crackdown is seen as hypocritical given the judiciary’s silence when rivers run red with animal blood during Eid al-Adha or when crop stubble burning chokes north India’s air. The selective zeal suggests that Hindu festivities are an easy scapegoat. - Diwali “Green Crackers” Order (2023): The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed a nationwide ban on traditional fireworks, allowing only limited use of so-called “green crackers.”
Bench: (Clarification by) Justices A. S. Bopanna and M. M. Sundresh; (initial ban orders by benches including CJI D. Y. Chandrachud and later CJI B. R. Gavai).
Stated Rationale: Uniform enforcement and public health requirements.
Critique: Continued judicial overreach and micro-management of a religious celebration.
Perceived Bias: A sustained pattern of singling out Hindu festivals for harsh regulation year after year, which Hindu communities interpret as an attempt to dim the joy of their celebrations. - Commutation of a Child Rapist’s Death Sentence (2022): In a case where a 4-year-old Hindu girl was brutally raped and murdered, the Supreme Court commuted the Muslim perpetrator’s death sentence – opining that “every sinner deserves another chance.”
Bench: Justice U. U. Lalit (who led a broader push to soften the death penalty), among others, with concurrences by justices including then-CJI S. A. Bobde, A. S. Bopanna, and V. Ramasubramanian.
Stated Rationale: Emphasis on constitutional mercy, “dignity” for convicts, and evolving standards under Article 21.
Critique: Misplaced empathy that undermines justice and deterrence for heinous crimes.
Perceived Bias: Gross insensitivity to victims’ rights. The message to Hindu society was chilling: even the most horrific crimes against your children will be forgiven, whereas the innocent victim receives no second chance at life. - Rohingya vs. Kashmiri Hindu Cases (2021): In Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India, the Supreme Court refused to halt the deportation of Rohingya Muslim illegal immigrants, yet entertained arguments that these non-citizens have rights under Articles 14 and 21. Meanwhile, the Court has repeatedly declined urgent hearings for displaced Kashmiri Hindus seeking justice after their ethnic cleansing.
Bench: CJI S. A. Bobde, Justices A. S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian.
Stated Rationale: “Fundamental rights are universal” (applying even to foreigners) tempered by national security concerns.
Critique: A skewed prioritization that borders on judicial activism.
Perceived Bias: Bending over backwards for illegal immigrants while ignoring citizens who are victims of terror. The Constitution does not grant illegal aliens greater rights than citizens, yet the judiciary showed more compassion to foreign Rohingyas than to Kashmiri Hindus languishing as refugees in their own country for over three decades. - Ayodhya Verdict Slandered by Ex-Judge (2019): After the unanimous Supreme Court verdict restoring the Ram Janmabhoomi site to Hindus, retired Justice Rohinton Nariman publicly called the judgment a “mockery of justice,” even referring to Hindus pursuing such cases as “hydra-headed” and “tyrannical.”
Bias: Such intemperate language from a former judge reveals deep-seated contempt for Hindu sentiments. Nariman’s choice of words — which he would never use for a minority community’s cause — exemplifies the free pass given to Hindu-bashing in elite circles. - State Control of Hindu Temples (2022): A PIL challenging government management of Hindu temples (under colonial-era laws) was met with Supreme Court skepticism about “revisiting” the 1863 Act. One Justice argued temple funds should serve “public good” (like funding government colleges).
Bench: CJI U. U. Lalit and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.
Stated Rationale: The state’s duty to ensure public benefit from large temple resources.
Critique: Judicial sanction of structural discrimination — treating Hindu religious assets as public property.
Perceived Bias: Hindu temples remain under government control ostensibly for “common good,” whereas the state wouldn’t dare touch the funds of churches or mosques. This double standard effectively denies Hindus the autonomy over their own institutions that minorities enjoy. - Temple Funds for Secular Projects (2023): The Supreme Court recently declined to interfere with a Madras High Court decision allowing the Tamil Nadu government to use Hindu temple lands and funds to build a college (calling the move “benevolent”).
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.
Stated Rationale: Welfare-oriented use of surplus temple funds.
Critique: Endorsing the diversion of dedicated religious resources to secular projects.
Perceived Bias: Normalizing the plunder of Hindu temple wealth for state use — a practice unheard of for minority religions — further entrenching the notion that Hindu institutions are fair game for government appropriation. - Interference in Temple Rituals (2022): The Supreme Court refused to stay the Tamil Nadu government’s decision to appoint priests (archakas) in Hindu temples from all castes, overriding traditional religious requirements.
Bench: Justice Hemant Gupta (heading the bench).
Stated Rationale: Equality and social reform trumping “narrow” caste-based restrictions in worship.
Critique: Heavy-handed state interference in religious practice and temple autonomy.
Perceived Bias: The judiciary targeted Hindu temple traditions under the banner of reform, while being exceedingly cautious about not offending practices of minority religions. - Hate Speech against Hinduism (2023): When a prominent politician openly called for eradicating Sanatan Dharma (the eternal Hindu way of life), the Supreme Court only grudgingly issued a notice and refused to take urgent action suo motu. Petitioners were told to follow the usual long process.
Bench: (Notably not led by Justices who’ve been proactive on hate speech when minorities are targeted.)
Stated Rationale: Adhering to standard procedure and not overstepping by acting on its own motion.
Critique: A stark contrast in urgency.
Perceived Bias: When minorities are allegedly insulted, the Court often jumps into action on its own; but when Hinduism is openly threatened with “eradication,” the response is tepid and bureaucratic. This differential treatment suggests that protecting Hindu sensibilities is a very low priority. - Nupur Sharma’s Ordeal (2022): During a hearing unrelated to any charges against Nupur Sharma (who had quoted Islamic scripture in a debate and then faced thousands of violent threats), Justice Surya Kant lambasted her, saying “You have ignited the whole country… you should apologize to the nation.”
Bench: Justice Surya Kant (with Justice J. B. Pardiwala).
Stated Rationale: None (it was an unsolicited oral observation during proceedings).
Critique: Blaming the victim of a violent campaign instead of condemning the extremists issuing beheading threats.
Perceived Bias: An alarming display of prejudice — effectively justifying mob fury and punishing a Hindu woman for allegedly “offending” Muslim sentiments, thereby chilling free expression.
These examples barely scratch the surface, but they underscore how a Hinduphobic mindset has taken hold in the judiciary. Equally alarming is the ecosystem enabling it. Many of the organizations that bring these cases under the guise of public interest or social justice are, in reality, part of a well-oiled machinery aimed at undermining the Hindu faith. They are well-funded, well-organized, and singularly focused on dismantling Hindu cultural and religious foundations. International operatives like billionaire George Soros — essentially frontmen for a Western deep-state agenda — loudly proclaim that “Muslims are under attack in India” while remaining silent on the relentless extermination of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh. As revealed during recent U.S. Congressional inquiries (e.g. the scrutiny of USAID programs), elements of the Western establishment have cynically used radical Islamist forces to destabilize nations and further geopolitical goals. In India, these forces find unwitting allies in a compromised media and, tragically, even within the judiciary.
A very sinister pattern emerges behind the judiciary’s actions. Why Dahi Handi? Because it fosters teamwork and valor among Hindu youth — traits undesirable to those who prefer a docile populace. Why Diwali every year? Because Diwali is the most cherished Hindu festival; stifling its celebration is a powerful way to demoralize the community. Meanwhile, the same judiciary has no qualms when animal blood runs through the streets and rivers during Eid, nor does it show urgency in tackling real pollution sources like stubble burning. The double standard is glaring and deliberate.
What we see is a complete lack of accountability – a corrupt clique masquerading as the noble guardians of the Constitution even as they routinely violate its spirit. The Indian judiciary today is, bluntly put, a mafia of corrupt, cowardly scoundrels posturing as the arbiters of justice. They claim to be the Constitution’s sentinels, yet consider how they appoint themselves that has no constitutional validity: through an opaque collegium system, essentially a club of judges picking their own successors, often from the same elite families. In a country of 1.4 billion, our higher judiciary has been a closed shop for decades.
While ordinary citizens struggle and millions of cases languish (over 50 million cases pending nationwide, including about 70,000 in the Supreme Court alone), judges luxuriate with 3-month vacations each year. They pompously sermonize about transparency and integrity, yet some among them tarnish India’s image abroad (like yourself, giving sanctimonious lectures on Dalit issues in foreign forums, or Justice Chandrachud airing India’s internal matters to the BBC), even as they turn a blind eye to the rot within. When a High Court judge’s residence was found stocked with sacks of illicit cash (hundreds of crores of rupees, by reports), did the judiciary launch a crusade against this corruption? No — it reportedly told the investigators to back off and ensured the evidence was swept under the rug. That was just one exposé; who knows how deep the financial corruption runs, when top lawyers charge crores for “fixing” urgent hearings and verdicts for the rich and powerful, while the common man’s case isn’t heard for generations.
shine a light on every instance of judicial bigotry, and we will relentlessly demand that those responsible – yourself included – answer for their words and deeds. The Hindu civilization, 1.4 billion strong, will no longer tolerate hatred and injustice from the very institution sworn to deliver justice.
Western Deep-State Links with Indian Judiciary under CJI Chandrachud
<Text from the graphic above>
Why would Harvard present ‘Global Leadership Award’ to Indian Supreme Court Chief Justice Chandrachud?
Is the award by Harvard, a part of the Western elite, given to Justice Chandrachud because he heads a judiciary…
… that is mostly a corrupt institution potentially amenable for Western elite goals? According to the Transparency International report 2003 (and in 2007), the Indian judiciary is a highly corrupt institution in which Indians have little faith.
… where judges are selected via an unconstitutional and opaque collegium system of ‘only judges select judges’. With little say from the people’s representatives, it propelled the current corrupt system potentially useful to Western elite break India forces such as Soros/Open Society NGOs & foreign supported PIL industry. Soros’s recent statement against Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is viewed as an attempt to do regime change (in 2024) of a democratically elected Government, invoking memories of 3 trillion dollars looted and more than 100 million Indians killed by British colonialists.
… where the ‘collegium’ system was created via a blatant hijack of the constitution (unheard of in any democracy) that resulted in a judiciary encroaching on the legislative, the election commission, the autonomy of State High courts, and even the constitution itself (using a dubious “basic structure” doctrine).
This makes the judiciary a possible centralized tool for external forces to control India for its goals. Recent statements from a concerned judge and the Indian law minister highlighted the issue of the collegium system hijacking the Indian constitution, a sad state where an unconstitutional self-appointing judiciary oversees the constitutionality of other branches of the government.
… where most of the senior judges in a country of 1.4 billion come from a handful of families, with their father or grandfather coming from the legal field or from a highly corrupt political party in India.
Chandrachud himself is accused of being a product of nepotism and engaging in the same (scratch my back, and I will scratch your back). As per news reports, his father, an earlier Chief Justice, recommended D.Y. Kripal as a High Court Judge, who later, as part of the collegium, recommended Chandrachud (as a high court judge). Now Chandrachud, as Chief Justice, recommends D.Y. Kripal’s son, Saurabh Kirpal, as a high court judge, perhaps setting up his son, a practicing lawyer, for a future judicial position. This nomination is being pushed by Chandrachud despite national security implications, displaying the tragic situation of judicial corruption. Chandrachud has also been accused of favoring his son in legal matters.
… a unique corrupt institution that created a system of ‘uncle judges’ where more than 30% of the state’s high court judges have close relatives practicing in the same courts. It asks rape victims to marry rapists, supports blasphemy, commutes sentences of pedophiles who committed heinous offenses, issues bails to criminals who go on to commit more crimes, highly discriminatory towards majority religion while cowardly yielding to violence of Islamists putting many lives at risk.
… an institution that is supposed to protect freedom of expression uses ‘contempt of court’ (that is non-existent in any respectable democracy) to muzzle any reasonable voices on corruption in the judiciary.
… that is entirely unaccountable to citizens of India with 47 million cases pending, out of which 70,000 cases in Supreme Court alone, while the Judges take colonial era long vacations (193 working days and work less than six hours per day). When questioned by the law minister, Justice Chandrachud threw tantrum & removed even the vacation judge who was to hear urgent cases during winter vacation.
… Chandrachud, a Harvard graduate, is accused as a woke judge whose ideas of intersectionality and Oppressed/Oppressor divisions, caste capital, equity versus equality, critical race/caste theory are taken right out of Harvard’s woke agenda. This has the potential to break India and dismantle India’s ancient civilization using reckless, dangerous & dubious theories that stand completely exposed in very detailed research efforts like ‘Snakes in the Ganga, breaking India 2.0’.
… while many in the nation are struggling for gainful employment, the highly privileged Judiciary ensures they have post-retirement jobs (and perks) by setting up bodies like tribunals and Human Rights commissions using millions of taxpayer funds and dictating that retired judges head them. Arun Jaitley, the opposition leader in 2013, spoke in Parliament on this bizarre & outrageous situation leading to more corruption in a hopelessly corrupt higher judiciary which is dangerously amenable to breaking India forces. This situation is believed to be leading the elected governments to entice the judiciary with post-retirement perks to do their job.
SC Lawyer Rakesh Kishore, Who Threw a Shoe at CJI Gavai, Speaks on His Disastrous Tenure
YouTube video
https://youtu.be/5BYDQZTOqHo?si=QSNt1Q1_wqKRHp5I
TRANSCRIPT
Since the 16th of September, I haven't been able to sleep. The power of God kept waking me from my sleep, asking, "What are you doing? You are sleeping." "The country is burning, and you are sleeping." I am a heart patient, and one of my valves is completely damaged. I had taken two days' worth of medicine with me because I knew that the police procedures and all would take time. I am very surprised that the Chief Justice let me go. But whenever a matter related to our Sanatana Dharma comes up, or any issue, big or small, they always pass some kind of order on it. This Supreme Court has been passing orders which makes me very sad, that they shouldn't be doing this. It's not that I was drunk or had taken some pills and did something. It's nothing like that. They took an action, and my reaction was that I am not fearful of anything, nor do I have any regret about what happened or what didn't happen. My name is Dr. Rakesh Kishore. Can anyone tell my caste? It's possible I am also a Dalit. So this has become a one-sided matter, that you are taking advantage of the fact that he is a Dalit and the other is not. First and foremost, we were Sanatanis, we were Hindus.
Sir, my first question to you is about the incident that happened in the Supreme Court yesterday.
What would you say, sir? What happened that you...
The thing is, I was very hurt that on the 16th of September, someone filed a PIL in the Chief Justice's court. So, Mr. Gavai first made a complete mockery of it. A mockery in the sense that he said, "Go and pray to the idol." "Go and tell the idol to restore its own head." Whereas we see that this same Chief Justice, against many religions, the people of other communities, you all know who those people are, when a case comes against them, they get major stays. For example, I'll give you an example. In Haldwani, a particular community has occupied railway land. When an attempt was made to remove them, the Supreme Court issued a stay, which has been in place for three years now. Similarly, when Nupur Sharma's case came up, the court said, "You have ruined the atmosphere." They say all this, impose restrictions, and do all that, which is absolutely fine. But when a matter related to our Sanatana Dharma comes up, whether it's Jallikattu or setting the height of the Dahi Handi, or any other issue, big or small, this Supreme Court keeps passing some order or the other on it, which makes me very sad, that they shouldn't be doing this. Fine, if you didn't want to grant relief to that person, don't. But at least don't make fun of him. Then he was told to go and meditate in front of that same idol. We will not pass any order... The whole country needs to think about what has happened. Nothing happened, nothing at all. The only thing was that I was interrogated for three or four hours at the DCP and ACP's office. I don't know which officers were there, but I am very grateful to them for offering me tea and biscuits once.
Don't you think that doing something like this to the CGI...
No, what to do, what not to do, let it be. I don't get into that. But the CJI should also think that when he is sitting on such a high constitutional post, in the entire court, every lawyer, even the most capable lawyer, is calling him 'My Lord'. So he should understand the meaning of 'My Lord'. What does 'My Lord' mean? He should uphold its dignity. If you can't give alms to someone, at least don't break their bowl. Don't humiliate them to the extent that you tell them to meditate before God. Then you just said nothing. You are going to countries like Mauritius, other countries, and saying that the country will not run on bulldozers. My question is to the CJI and to all those who are opposing me, to tell me about the people... I was born in Bareilly, from Bareilly... They have built big mansions, hotels, and marriage lawns. Is the bulldozer action that Yogi ji is taking against them wrong? They have illegally occupied lands, and you people in the High and Supreme Court keep putting a stop to it. You are not thinking that the land in Haldwani which belongs to the railways... I have also been to Haldwani. I have also seen those shanties. For three years, this Supreme Court has put a stay on the removal of those shanties on both sides of the railway line in Haldwani. Tell me, when it is illegal property, what is the need for that? When people bring those cases, you decide the case and order the land to be returned to them.
Sir, besides this, there is also a question that the number of people speaking against Sanatana is increasing. What is your take on this?
No, the thing is that for thousands of years, we have been slaves to everyone. Small communities came and ruled over us, only because we have always been very tolerant. Even today, we are tolerant, but when our very existence is in danger, then I want... that we also take care of our interests, our politicians, the police, the judiciary, and they should understand that when our country became independent in 1947, there were seven nations with us, and instead of seven, today there are fifty-seven. We are one. We gave half from here and half from there. Now, half is about to be divided again. What will be left with us? Where will we run? These are my arguments behind it.
There is a question, sir, that the police did not take any action because there was no complaint from the Supreme Court, but now the Bar Council may take action.
No, the Bar Council cannot take it, the Bar Council has already taken it. I received the hard copy just yesterday. I can show it to you. I had it with me just now. Let me see, it's kept over there. Yes, I am showing my letter. This is Mr. Mannan, who is the... He is the secretary of this, and he has issued this entire order. Now, in this order itself, just listen to one thing of mine. Please read Section 35 of the Advocates Act under which I have been suspended. Give it. They will give us a notice, and we will reply to it. This is called the principle of natural justice. Now, see the wonder. Such a big entity, as you call it, the Bar Council, has violated the rules in my case. They did not give me any notice. I have to return the fees to the clients I have taken fees from. I will reply to them.
Sir, one question is that since yesterday, we are seeing on social media that many opposition leaders are giving statements.
Their point is that on a Dalit judge, in a way...
Yes, I will say that my name is Dr. Rakesh Kishore. Can anyone tell my caste? It's possible I am also a Dalit. So this has become a one-sided matter that you are taking advantage of the fact that he is a Dalit and the other is not. First and foremost, they were Sanatanis, they were Hindus, they were Hindu Dalits. And after that, they left everything and adopted Buddhism. I know that too, and I also know that after they adopted Buddhism, if they consider themselves to have come out of the Hindu religion, then how are they still Dalits? This is a matter of mentality, and all these people who are calling themselves Dalits, you can see that these people want to bring down this government and want the country to become a slave again. This is their... They do it, let them do it. I have nothing to do with Dalit or anything.
After this, sir, there is also one thing, that some people have a... that he is saying that an incident happened in which the police took no action, the Supreme Court took no action. Now people's morale will increase, and such incidents may increase.
Don't you think these incidents can increase?
What is its significance? The judges also need to increase their sensitivity. Lakhs and crores of cases are pending. Why are they pending? Let me give you another small example. A friend of mine has a case under the Motor Vehicles Act going on in Karkardooma Court. There was an accident. And when was that? It was in 2002, during the Corona period. And in that, the victim himself has said clearly that I was coming from the wrong side on a motorcycle, was not wearing a helmet, did not have a driving license, and there are no scratch marks from the tires at the scene of the accident. When I went to the judge's court last time, I said, "Your Honor, like this..." So he said, "What do you want? Should I finish the case right now?" It's amazing! This is a prima facie thing, that if a person is coming from the wrong side... The bone was shattered into pieces, and just a small chip was fixed, nothing happened. Neither the motorcycle was damaged nor the car. Now this case has been going on for four years, and the person against whom it is going on is in a very big hospital. The poor doctor, he stands there with folded hands at every hearing. So, they have made the processes of the cases in such a way that they just keep extending them, so what can anyone do in this?
Sir, a question for you about what happened yesterday. Do you have any regrets, sir?
I am not going to apologize, nor do I have any regrets. I have done nothing. You are raising questions against me. Why God made me do it, I did it. I do what God makes me do. His will is done. If it is his will that I go to jail, I will go to jail, or if he wants me to be hanged... I say, let God's will be done. I am 72 years old. How long will I live with this kind of incident? You will see me now.
Remarks by Noted Author and Speaker Anand Ranganathan on Judicial Bias Against Hindus in India
Youtube video
https://youtu.be/6RH9pmbuLow?si=ml5qWD--TALd3zbY
Transcript
1) *Kashmir Hindus*
2) *Waqf Act*
3) *State control of temples*
4) *Right to Education (RTE) act*
5) *Free Speech*
6) *Hindu Ritualistic practices*
7) *Places of worship act*
8) *Sabarimala Judgement*
9) *CAA protests*
10) *Diwali crackers ban*
The Chief Justice respects all religions but mocks only one of them [1]. Even he knows that had he taunted an aggrieved Muslim pleading for a damaged mosque to be restored, telling them, "Go ask your Allah to do something," chances are he would have met the same fate as that of the Vishnu idol [1]. It is easy to abuse and mock Hindus; they do not behead transgressors [1].
However, let this episode not make you believe that the Supreme Court is acting against the Hindus for the first time [1]. Let me give you clear-cut instances, Rahul, where the Supreme Court, in overlooking as well as overseeing blatant discrimination against the Hindus, not only seeded resentment but stoked the possibility of religious wars in this country [1].
**1. Kashmir Hindus** The Supreme Court refused to reopen the cases of criminality in 1990 against the Kashmir Hindus, quoting that "too much time had elapsed" [1]. This happened after the same Supreme Court constituted an SIT to look into the cases of criminality in 1984 against the Sikhs [1]. That incident happened six years before the Kashmir Hindu genocide [1, 2]. If this is not seeding resentment among Hindus and stoking religious wars, what is [2]?
**2. Waqf Act** For 30 years, the Supreme Court never found illegal an act that gave Muslims the power to claim any property as their own [2]. That allowed them to annex any land housing a functional mosque, permitting Muslims to usurp 20 lakh acres in the last 10 years [2]. If this is not seeding resentment among Hindus and stoking religious wars, what is [2]?
**3. State Control of Temples** How can the state be secular and at the same time control only Hindu places of worship [2]? Why doesn't the Supreme Court, in the interest of the equality it so cherishes, ask the state to control mosques as it does temples [2]? If this is not seeding resentment among the Hindus and stoking religious wars, what is [2]?
**4. RTE** The Supreme Court ratified the conjunction of the Right to Education Act with the 93rd Amendment, forcing only Hindu-run schools to give 25% reservation to the EWS children [2]. Muslim-run or Christian schools are not under such obligations [2, 3]. This has forced thousands of Hindu-run schools to shut down [3]. If this is not seeding resentment amongst Hindus and stoking religious wars, what is [3]?
**5. Free Speech** Why did the Supreme Court so ruthlessly come down on Nupur Sharma for merely quoting Islamic scriptures while Udi Stalinian roams free [3]? You rush in to call any speech against Islam as hate speech but call hate speech against Hinduism "as any speech" [3]. If this is not seeding resentment among Hindus and stoking religious wars, what is [3]?
**6. Hindu Ritualistic Practices** Animal sacrifice is banned for Hindus, but halal is allowed for Muslims, even though both are religious rituals [3]. If this is not seeding resentment among Hindus and stoking religious wars, what is, Rahul [3]?
**7. Places of Worship Act** The Supreme Court has willfully ratified the Places of Worship Act that obligates maintaining all religious places as they were on August 15, 1947 [3]. Thousands of historical places right now can now never be addressed, even though a legal recourse [3] to correct historical injustices cannot be denied in a democracy [4]. If this is not seeding resentment among Hindus and stoking religious wars, what is [4]?
**8. Sabarimala Judgment** There are many Hindu temples where men are barred entry [4]. Was this discrimination, Rahul, or perceived discrimination [4]? Meanwhile, Catholic women cannot become priests; Muslim women cannot enter a mosque's *sanctum sanctorum*; and they "can marry underage" [4]. The Supreme Court removes discrimination only from Hinduism, not from Islam or Christianity [4]. If this is not seeding resentment among Hindus and stoking religious wars, what is [4]?
**9. CAA Protests** The Shaheen Bagh and anti-CAA protest that resulted in the terrible 2020 Delhi riots involved the blockade and the blatant illegality of it [4]. But the Supreme Court, despite recognizing illegality, went for mediation to remove the blockade [4]. Would the Supreme Court ask for mediation for everything that it says is illegal [4]?
*My lords, you should be men, not gods [4, 5]. You should hold a pen, not a bolt of lightning [5]. You should earn respect, not demand it [5].*
India is fast becoming a banana republic where elected governments cannot even clear illegal encroachments on public land without a court’s nod. And who rushes to “protect” those illegal occupations? Time and again, Islamist organizations file petitions to stall enforcement, effectively using the courts to legitimize land grabs. Our judges oblige with endless stay orders, tying the hands of the authorities. Little wonder that voices from within the establishment are speaking up: Sanjeev Sanyal, a member of the PM’s Economic Advisory Council, publicly stated that India “cannot progress with the current judiciary.” Even a former Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, admitted that “India cannot achieve a $5 trillion economy with the present state of the judiciary.”
While countries like China leap ahead with streamlined systems (unencumbered by a judicial mafia), the destiny of 1.4 billion Indians remains shackled by a bench of black-robed tyrants. We, the global Hindu community, refuse to remain silent in the face of this injustice. Enough is enough. It is high time for introspection, accountability, and genuine reform in the Indian judiciary. As Chief Justice, you should be leading this reform – not exemplifying the prejudices and arrogance that necessitate it.
The onus is now on you, Justice Gavai, and your colleagues on the bench, to prove that you can purge Hinduphobia from your ranks and uphold true justice. Until then, we will continue to
More Information.........................
Arun Jaitley - On Judiciary Mandating Post Retirement Arrangements
More Information.........................
Arun Jaitley - On Judiciary Mandating Post Retirement Arrangements
Marvels of Collegium - Chandrachud family tree, ‘I scratch your back and you scratch mine’