Introduction
The Supreme Court of India witnessed an unprecedented moment of chaos on Monday when a lawyer attempted to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai. The shocking incident occurred during court proceedings, echoing across the legal fraternity and reigniting the national debate around judicial conduct, religious sentiments, and the limits of protest within constitutional institutions.
The lawyer, later identified as Rakesh Kishore, disrupted the courtroom by shouting slogans such as “Sanatan ka apmaan nahi sahenge” (“We will not tolerate insult of Sanatan Dharma”) before being swiftly restrained by security personnel. This incident is now under investigation and has raised serious questions about both court security and the volatile intersections between faith and law in India.
The Incident
During the morning session, as lawyers were mentioning cases, Kishore suddenly moved towards the front bench, removed his footwear, and made an aggressive attempt to throw it at the CJI. The situation caused brief panic in the courtroom, with several advocates rising to their feet in shock. However, security officials intervened within moments, preventing any physical harm and escorting him out of the hall.
Eyewitnesses confirmed that the lawyer repeatedly shouted slogans accusing the judiciary of disrespecting Sanatan Dharma. His act followed controversy surrounding CJI Gavai’s earlier remarks in a hearing, where his words were allegedly misinterpreted on social media as being dismissive of Hindu faith. Though the CJI clarified he had no intention of insulting any religion, tensions had already escalated in certain circles.
Reactions
The incident provoked immediate reactions from the legal fraternity. Senior advocates condemned the act as a blatant attack on the dignity of the Supreme Court. “Whatever grievances one may have, violence or theatrics cannot find space in the temple of justice,” said a senior bar member outside the courtroom. The Bar Council of India also issued a statement demanding strict disciplinary action against the lawyer.
CJI Gavai himself remained calm. After the commotion, he remarked: “These things do not affect me. Let us proceed with the matters.” His composed statement was met with appreciation across the bar, reinforcing the principle that the judiciary must remain undisturbed by provocation.
Government and Legal Response
Following the attack attempt, Delhi Police confirmed that lawyer Rakesh Kishore was taken into custody. Officials are investigating the possibility of criminal charges, including attempt to assault a public servant, breach of peace, and contempt of court. Additionally, the Supreme Court registry is reviewing security protocols within the premises.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta expressed solidarity with the CJI, stating that judicial comments are often misrepresented on social platforms and used to incite outrage. He urged citizens and professionals alike to maintain faith in judicial institutions rather than resort to disruptive protests.
Larger Implications
The shoe-throwing attempt underscores the fragile balance between judicial independence and public sentiment in a deeply religious society. While courts are expected to interpret law without fear or favor, growing sensitivity around religious identity often spills into judicial spaces, posing challenges for both judges and litigants.
Legal scholars note that this is not the first time India’s judiciary has faced dramatic protests. However, such acts inside the courtroom are rare and potentially destabilizing. The incident may trigger broader discussions on how to safeguard the decorum of courtrooms while acknowledging the role of public emotion in shaping the justice system.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court incident involving lawyer Rakesh Kishore has opened a new chapter in the conversation on protest, faith, and respect for judicial authority. While the attempt failed, the symbolism was powerful and troubling. Going forward, the judiciary, government, and civil society must work together to ensure that differences are expressed through lawful channels rather than acts of aggression within the halls of justice.
Post a Comment