Today, On 27th October, The Supreme Court refused to take immediate action against advocate Rakesh Kishore over the alleged shoe-hurling incident targeting CJI B.R. Gavai. The Bench said it was not closing the matter and would frame preventive guidelines.
The Supreme Court heard the contempt petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) against advocate Rakesh Kishore over the alleged shoe-throwing incident targeting Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai during court proceedings.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymala Bagchi.
Appearing for the SCBA, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh said,
“When the incident occurred, he was detained briefly and then released. Initially, we didn’t plan to pursue this, but his later conduct , claiming ‘God asked me to do it’ and that he would do it again is being glorified. This glorification must stop; it brings disrepute to the institution.”
Justice Surya Kant observed,
“The act amounts to severe and grave criminal contempt, and his subsequent conduct only worsens it. Once the CJI himself has pardoned…”
To this, Singh clarified,
“That pardon was in his personal capacity. This petition is about the institution. We can’t let this slide; people are mocking the judiciary. It’s eroding respect for the institution.”
Justice Kant responded,
“We’ll examine the request for a John Doe order. If we act today, he might react again tomorrow.”
Singh urged the court,
“Please issue notice. Let him express remorse. if he doesn’t, he should face jail.”
Justice Kant questioned,
“Why give him more importance?”
Singh replied,
“It’s already become a joke in society.”
Justice Kant then remarked,
“We should focus on the larger issues perhaps the guidelines you’ve suggested.”
Justice Joymala Bagchi explained,
“The Contempt of Courts Act draws a clear distinction for contempt committed in the face of the Court; Section 14 governs that. In such cases, it’s for the concerned judge to act. Here, the CJI, in his gracious magnanimity, chose to ignore the incident. Once he did so, can the Attorney General still grant consent under Section 15? Please examine that provision.”
Justice Bagchi further added,
“We’re aware of the glorification surrounding the incident. We’ll keep these proceedings pending so that appropriate guidelines can be framed rather than turning this into an adversarial process.”
Vikas Singh maintained,
“The CJI’s decision not to act was his personal choice it doesn’t reflect the institution’s stance.”
Justice Kant reiterated,
“Why give unnecessary importance to such an individual?”
Singh responded,
“The issue is that he is glorifying it now and even disrespecting the god that he is claiming made him do it. If he would have gone to jail that very day then we would have also left the issue but the CJI could not have known what will follow.”
Justice Kant said,
“Let’s focus on framing guidelines , we’ll also ask the Solicitor General to assist us in suggesting possible preventive or safety measures for such situations.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated,
“In cases of criminal contempt, it’s ordinarily for the concerned judge to act, but once a petition is filed, the decision rests with Your Lordships. However, issuing notice could inadvertently prolong his social media relevance, he might even portray himself as a victim.”
Vikas Singh argued,
“If no action is taken, disgruntled individuals across the country will keep repeating such acts.”
Justice Kant remarked,
“This has become a commercial spectacle as long as media outlets know that featuring him generates revenue, they’ll keep doing it.”
The Solicitor General added,
“He is just a product.”
Vikas Singh then warned,
“Tomorrow he might even claim that the Supreme Court lacked the courage to issue a notice.”
Justice Kant assured,
“We are not closing anything. We’ll take up after one week. Keep the suggestions ready by then.”
The court ultimately dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable but decided to keep the matter pending to frame guidelines on preventive and safety measures in courtrooms.
Earlier, A shocking incident occurred inside the Supreme Court of India on 6th October, when advocate Rakesh Kishore attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai during court proceedings.
The 71-year-old lawyer, a resident of Mayur Vihar and a registered member of the Supreme Court Bar Association since 2011, removed his sports shoe and hurled it toward the CJI.
The incident took place in Court No. 1 of the Supreme Court when a 71-year-old lawyer, Rakesh Kishore, tried to hurl his shoe towards the Chief Justice while proceedings were underway.
Kishore reportedly walked close to the dais where the judges were seated, removed his shoe, and attempted to throw it.
Alert security personnel inside the courtroom immediately intervened and stopped the attack. Kishore was quickly escorted outside and prevented from causing further disturbance.
Police officials later said that the lawyer was upset with remarks made by the Chief Justice while hearing a plea connected to the restoration of a seven-foot-tall damaged Lord Vishnu idol in the Khajuraho Temple complex in Madhya Pradesh.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi strongly condemned the shocking incident inside the Supreme Court where Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai faced an attempted attack.
In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Modi said,
“Spoke to Chief Justice of India, Justice BR Gavai Ji. The attack on him earlier today in the Supreme Court premises has angered every Indian. There is no place for such reprehensible acts in our society.”
Modi also praised the calmness and dignity with which Justice Gavai handled the situation.
Case Title: SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION v RAKESH KISHORE (Crl.) No. 1/2025
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
