Ex-Supreme Court Judge Markandey Katju criticizes judges for delivering moral sermons in court, calling them “unwarranted, inappropriate, and unnecessary,” following the shoe-throwing incident targeting CJI BR Gavai over his remarks on a Vishnu idol restoration case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On 6th October, the Indian judiciary witnessed an unprecedented act when a 71-year-old lawyer attempted a shoe attack at Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai during court proceedings. While violence inside a courtroom is never justifiable, the incident has raised wider debate on the conduct of judges and the boundaries of courtroom commentary.
The attack was reportedly triggered by an oral remark by CJI Gavai in which he told a petitioner seeking the restoration of a Bhagwan Vishnu idol:
“Go and ask the deity itself to do something. Go and pray.”
The petitioner had approached the Supreme Court requesting directions for the idol’s restoration.
Former Supreme Court Judge Markandey Katju weighed in on the matter on X, condemning the act of violence but also critiquing the Chief Justice for his remark. Katju emphasized that such comments were “totally unwarranted, inappropriate, and unnecessary,” pointing out that judges should maintain focus on legal issues rather than delivering moral lectures or sermons. He remarked,
“What would happen if a judge hearing a petition regarding the demolition of a mosque said ‘Let Allah or Prophet Mohammed restore it?’”
In an op-ed linked to his post, Katju elaborated that courtroom violence, though never justified, sometimes stems from judges crossing the line between judicial restraint and personal sermonising. Citing Francis Bacon, he noted,
“A much talking judge is like an ill-tuned cymbal,”
emphasizing that verbosity from the Bench can disrupt court decorum.
He argued that CJI Gavai’s offhand remark to “pray to Vishnu” was a classic example of commentary with no legal relevance that unnecessarily stirs public sentiment.
Katju contrasted this with his experience in the British High Court, describing it as an environment of “serenity, calm, and tranquillity,” where judges speak sparingly and allow lawyers to present their cases in measured tones. He lamented that modern Indian courtrooms, often livestreamed, reflect the opposite: frequent interruptions and digressions into moral or personal commentary, which can influence lower courts and public perception.
Extending his criticism, Katju also mentioned instances involving Justice Surya Kant and former CJI Chandrachud, highlighting the risks of judges’ oral remarks impacting the neutrality and dignity of the judiciary. His core advice is simple yet profound: judges must hear more and speak less, maintaining calm even in moments of provocation.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI B.R. Gavai
