In an unprecedented and deeply disturbing incident inside the Supreme Court of India, Advocate Rakesh Kishore allegedly attempted to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai during court proceedings on Monday. The shocking act has triggered widespread outrage within the legal fraternity and among political leaders, leading to a request for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against the advocate.
This episode raises grave questions about courtroom decorum, professional ethics, and the sanctity of the judiciary — pillars that form the foundation of India’s constitutional democracy.
Letter to Attorney General Seeks Consent for Contempt Proceedings
Advocate Subhash Chandran KR has written to Attorney General R Venkataramani, seeking consent under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to initiate criminal contempt action against Rakesh Kishore.
The letter alleges that Kishore’s attempt to throw a shoe at the CJI and his subsequent statements to the media constitute “gross interference with the administration of justice” and undermine the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court.
The complainant emphasized that Kishore’s conduct went beyond mere protest — it was a deliberate attempt to scandalize the Court and erode public confidence in the judiciary. Even after being restrained by security personnel, Kishore reportedly continued making contemptuous remarks against the Chief Justice, showing no remorse for his actions.
Incident Inside Supreme Court Courtroom No. 1
The incident took place inside Courtroom No. 1, presided over by the CJI, during the morning session. Witnesses reported that Kishore suddenly attempted to throw a shoe toward the dais where the judges were seated, shouting,
“Sanatan ka apmaan nahi sahega Hindustan”
(“Hindustan will not tolerate the insult of Sanatan Dharma”).
Security personnel immediately intervened and restrained him before the shoe could reach the bench. The advocate was escorted out of the courtroom and handed over to the police.
Later, the Bar Council of India (BCI) suspended him for his conduct, terming it “unbecoming of an advocate.” However, he was let off by the Delhi Police after the Registrar General of the Supreme Court declined to pursue criminal charges.
Legal Framework: What Constitutes Criminal Contempt of Court?
Under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, criminal contempt includes the publication or act which:
- Scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers the authority of any court;
- Prejudices or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
- Interferes with or obstructs the administration of justice in any other manner.
Throwing or attempting to throw a shoe at a sitting Chief Justice during open court proceedings directly interferes with the administration of justice and demeans the authority of the court, bringing it squarely within the definition of criminal contempt.
If the Attorney General grants consent, the Supreme Court may take suo motu cognizance or permit the filing of a contempt petition under Article 129 of the Constitution, which empowers it to punish for contempt of itself.
Bar Council Action and Professional Misconduct
The Bar Council of India, in an immediate response, suspended Advocate Kishore’s license, calling his behavior a disgrace to the legal profession. The BCI noted that advocates are “officers of the court” and are bound by the principles of professional ethics and respect for judicial institutions.
Under Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules, advocates are expected to maintain dignity and decorum in the courtroom, showing utmost respect toward the judiciary. Any violation may attract disciplinary action under the Advocates Act, 1961, including suspension or disbarment.
Political Leaders and Bar Associations Condemn the Act
The attempted attack on CJI BR Gavai drew universal condemnation across political lines. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Opposition Leader Rahul Gandhi, Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge, and several Chief Ministers — including MK Stalin, Mamata Banerjee, Pinarayi Vijayan, Revanth Reddy, and Siddaramaiah — expressed solidarity with the Chief Justice and denounced the attack as an affront to the judiciary.
Major bar bodies, including the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), and High Court Bar Associations across India, issued statements reaffirming their commitment to judicial independence and condemning any attempt to intimidate judges.
Contempt Petitions Against Aniruddhacharya and Ajeet Bharti
In a related development, another advocate has filed a separate petition before the Attorney General seeking contempt action against religious preacher Aniruddhacharya (also known as Aniruddh Ram Tiwari) and YouTuber Ajeet Bharti, alleging that their provocative remarks against the CJI may have incited the attack.
The petition asserts that such statements were not mere expressions of opinion but deliberate attempts to vilify the judiciary, thus amounting to criminal contempt under the Act. The matter now awaits the Attorney General’s consent, which is mandatory for private individuals to initiate contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court.
Public Faith in Judiciary: The Broader Implications
The Supreme Court is not merely an adjudicatory body; it is the constitutional conscience of the nation. Acts of aggression or contempt against the judiciary strike at the heart of rule of law, which is one of the basic features of the Indian Constitution.
The right to protest and freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) cannot extend to acts that disrupt court proceedings or undermine judicial authority. As the Supreme Court has held in Re: Arundhati Roy (2002) and Prashant Bhushan (2020), criticism of judges is permissible within limits — but conduct that impairs the administration of justice invites punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act.
If left unchecked, such incidents could set a dangerous precedent where judicial officers become targets of hostility, eroding public trust in the judiciary’s independence.
Conclusion: Need to Reaffirm Respect for Judicial Institutions
The attempted attack on CJI BR Gavai is not just a personal affront to the Chief Justice but a direct assault on the authority of the Supreme Court of India. The call for criminal contempt action is, therefore, not merely punitive — it is symbolic of the judiciary’s resolve to uphold its dignity and the sanctity of the courtroom.
As India continues to witness increasing polarization, it becomes even more vital to reaffirm faith in constitutional institutions and ensure that disagreement never degenerates into disorder. The legal profession, in particular, must lead by example, preserving the traditions of civility and respect that define the Indian judicial system.
Also Read
PIL in Supreme Court Seeks Court-Monitored Probe into Deaths of Children from Toxic Cough Syrup
