In a significant development aimed at safeguarding judicial dignity and institutional integrity, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Union Government have agreed to submit joint suggestions to the Supreme Court for framing preventive guidelines to curb attacks on judges and regulate the publicisation and glorification of such incidents, particularly on digital and social media platforms.
The proposal emerged during the hearing of a criminal contempt petition filed by the SCBA against Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who had allegedly hurled a shoe at the then Chief Justice of India Justice B.R. Gavai while he was holding court. The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
Background Of The Case
The contempt petition, titled Supreme Court Bar Association v. Rakesh Kishore (CONMT.PET.(Crl.) No. 1 of 2025), was initiated following an unprecedented incident inside the courtroom that raised serious concerns about courtroom security, judicial independence, and respect for constitutional institutions.
At an earlier hearing, the Supreme Court had expressed reluctance to proceed with criminal contempt action, indicating that a purely punitive approach may not be the most effective response. Instead, the Bench signalled its intent to focus on systemic and preventive measures to ensure that similar incidents do not recur in the future.
SCBA’s Proposal For Preventive Guidelines
During the hearing on December 17, 2025, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the SCBA, informed the Court that the Bar Association had already prepared a draft set of guidelines aimed at preventing such attacks on judges.
Singh emphasised that since the proposed guidelines would likely have regulatory implications, particularly concerning media and online platforms, the Union of India should be formally impleaded as a party to the proceedings. He submitted that a collaborative approach between the judiciary, the executive, and the Bar was necessary to ensure enforceability and long-term effectiveness.
“We have discussed and drafted something, but I was of the view that the Union of India should be a party when your lordships are thinking of guidelines… so that either it can be incorporated in the IT Rules or the Supreme Court Rules,” Singh told the Bench.
Concerns Over Media Reporting And Social Media Glorification
One of the central issues highlighted by the SCBA was the irresponsible reporting and glorification of attacks on judges, particularly on digital platforms and social media. Singh submitted that viral content celebrating or sensationalising such acts undermines public confidence in the judiciary and may embolden similar behaviour.
The SCBA suggested that the proposed norms should impose responsibility on mainstream media houses, digital news portals, and social media platforms to ensure that content encouraging contemptuous behaviour or violence against judges is not propagated.
The submission gains significance in an era where courtroom incidents are rapidly circulated online, often stripped of legal context and amplified for sensationalism.
Union Government’s Stand
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union of India, agreed with the SCBA’s proposal and assured the Court that the Union and the SCBA would jointly place suggestions before the Supreme Court.
The Solicitor General’s consent indicates a rare but crucial alignment between the Bar and the executive on an issue affecting the institutional security of the judiciary.
Recording the submissions, the Supreme Court passed the following order:
“Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Union and Senior Advocate Vikas Singh for the SCBA jointly state that they will put up a proposal before this Court to ensure suggestions for preventive measures for these kinds of occurrences, and the matter of reporting and publicising the incident.”
Supreme Court’s Shift From Punishment To Prevention
The Court’s approach marks a notable shift in contempt jurisprudence—from a focus on punishment to institutional reform and prevention. Instead of invoking its contempt powers immediately, the Supreme Court appears inclined to lay down structural safeguards that address the root causes of such incidents.
This aligns with broader constitutional principles that seek to balance:
- Judicial authority
- Freedom of speech and expression
- Responsible journalism
- Public accountability
By exploring the possibility of incorporating these norms into the Information Technology Rules or the Supreme Court Rules, the Court is attempting to give the guidelines statutory or procedural backing, enhancing their enforceability.
Legal And Constitutional Significance
The case raises several important constitutional and legal questions:
1. Judicial Independence And Security
Attacks on judges strike at the heart of judicial independence. Ensuring physical safety and institutional respect is essential for judges to discharge their constitutional duties fearlessly.
2. Limits Of Free Speech
While Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech, the case highlights the reasonable restrictions necessary to prevent speech that undermines the judiciary or incites contempt.
3. Role Of Media In Court Reporting
The proceedings underscore the growing concern over trial by media and the need for ethical standards in court-related reporting, especially in the digital age.
4. Contempt Jurisdiction As A Last Resort
The Court’s reluctance to immediately invoke criminal contempt reflects an evolving judicial philosophy that views contempt powers as extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly.
Way Forward
The joint proposal by the SCBA and the Union Government could result in:
- Clear protocols for courtroom security
- Guidelines on ethical reporting of contemptuous incidents
- Obligations on social media intermediaries to curb glorification of violence against judges
- A more balanced framework that protects judicial authority without chilling legitimate criticism
If adopted, these guidelines may serve as a model framework for courts across the country and reinforce public trust in the justice delivery system.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to encourage collaborative, preventive solutions rather than immediate punitive action represents a mature institutional response to a deeply concerning incident. By involving the SCBA and the Union Government, the Court has opened the door to holistic reforms addressing courtroom security, media ethics, and judicial dignity.
As the matter progresses, the proposed guidelines may play a pivotal role in shaping how India’s constitutional institutions respond to threats—both physical and digital—against the judiciary.
Also Read
