Introduction
The Supreme Court of India is scheduled to hear on October 27, 2025, a crucial petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) seeking criminal contempt proceedings against Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who allegedly attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice BR Gavai during court proceedings on October 6, 2025.
The case has raised significant questions about courtroom decorum, respect for the judiciary, and the limits of free expression in legal institutions.
Background of the Incident
The shocking incident took place during a court hearing in the Supreme Court of India, when Advocate Rakesh Kishore reportedly attempted to throw a shoe toward the Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai. Though the object did not make contact and the situation was swiftly controlled by security personnel, it sparked intense debate within the legal fraternity regarding the dignity of the judiciary and disciplinary accountability among advocates.
The CJI, displaying remarkable restraint, chose not to initiate contempt action personally against the lawyer. However, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), led by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, decided to take up the matter independently, stating that the attack was not just on an individual judge but on the institution of the Supreme Court itself.
SCBA’s Contempt Petition
The SCBA has filed a criminal contempt petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, arguing that the lawyer’s act amounted to gross interference with the administration of justice and undermined the authority of the highest court.
On October 16, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh mentioned the matter before a bench led by Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, informing the court that Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani had granted consent to initiate contempt proceedings, as required under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, also supported the SCBA’s move, reinforcing that the incident had damaged the sanctity of the judicial process.
Bench’s Initial Observations
During the initial mention of the case, Justice Surya Kant’s bench expressed hesitation about reviving the controversy. The bench noted that CJI Gavai himself had chosen to let the matter rest and observed that taking action might unnecessarily reignite public attention on an incident that could otherwise “die a natural death.”
The bench further questioned whether it should devote valuable judicial time to a matter of symbolic importance when numerous pressing constitutional and legal issues await adjudication. Nonetheless, the court agreed to list the matter for detailed hearing on October 27, 2025.
SCBA’s Stand: “Institution’s Honour Must Be Protected”
SCBA President Vikas Singh argued that the issue transcends personal insult and strikes at the core of institutional respect. He stated that despite the CJI’s personal magnanimity, the act constituted a direct attack on the judiciary and could not be ignored merely as an emotional outburst.
Singh also highlighted that Rakesh Kishore had continued to justify his actions in media interviews, thereby aggravating the contempt. He emphasized that social media users have been glorifying the assault attempt, and requested the Court to issue a “John Doe” order (an injunction against unknown persons) to prevent the spread of contemptuous or defamatory content online.
Consent From Attorney General for Criminal Contempt
Under Indian law, before any private person or association can initiate criminal contempt proceedings, written consent from the Attorney General or Solicitor General is mandatory. In this case, the Attorney General’s consent was granted, enabling the SCBA to formally approach the Supreme Court.
This consent underscores the seriousness with which the constitutional law officers view the incident. It reflects the broader concern that if such actions go unchecked, they might erode public confidence in the judiciary.
Possible Legal Consequences
If found guilty of criminal contempt, the accused advocate could face punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which prescribes simple imprisonment up to six months and/or a fine up to ₹2,000.
However, the Court retains discretion to drop proceedings if the contemnor tenders an unconditional apology to the satisfaction of the bench.
Legal experts suggest that the Court may consider both the gravity of the act and the post-incident conduct of the lawyer, especially his public statements defending his actions.
Broader Implications: Dignity of the Judiciary and Contempt Jurisprudence
This case has reignited discussion around freedom of expression versus contempt powers of courts. Critics argue that contempt proceedings sometimes stifle dissent, while supporters assert that such actions are essential to protect judicial independence and courtroom order.
In India’s constitutional framework, Article 129 declares the Supreme Court as a “court of record” with powers to punish for its own contempt. Thus, the matter is not merely disciplinary but also constitutional, relating to the Court’s inherent authority to preserve the sanctity of judicial proceedings.
Legal scholars believe that the outcome of this case may shape the future contours of courtroom discipline and bar-bench relations in India.
Public and Professional Reaction
The legal community has been divided in its response. Many senior advocates have condemned the act, calling it an “unprecedented affront” to the institution. Others have expressed concern that overreaction might draw more attention to the incident than it deserves.
On social media, reactions have ranged from strong condemnation to sarcastic commentary about judicial accountability. This polarization reflects broader public sentiments about the judiciary’s transparency and sensitivity to criticism.
The Upcoming Hearing on October 27
As per the Supreme Court cause list, the matter titled “Supreme Court Bar Association v. Rakesh Kishore” [CONMT. PET. (Crl.) No. 1/2025] is scheduled to be heard by Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi on October 27, 2025.
The Court’s decision on whether to issue notice of contempt or let the matter rest will be closely watched, as it may set a precedent for how the judiciary responds to acts of physical and verbal aggression within its halls.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s upcoming hearing in the SCBA contempt petition will test the delicate balance between judicial dignity, personal restraint, and institutional accountability.
While the CJI’s refusal to escalate the matter reflected commendable restraint, the Bar Association’s move signifies a commitment to uphold the dignity of the institution beyond individual preferences.
Whatever the outcome, the case is poised to become a defining moment for India’s contempt jurisprudence, reinforcing that the majesty of the Supreme Court must be preserved not merely through power but through the collective integrity of the legal community.
Also Read
Delhi High Court Protects Hrithik Roshan’s Personality Rights Against AI Misuse and Morphed Content
