AG's Consent Sought for Criminal Contempt Action Over Threats to CJI Gavai

NEW DELHI – In a significant development following the recent attempted physical assault on the Chief Justice of India, a formal request has been made to the Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, seeking consent to initiate criminal contempt of court proceedings against a religious orator and a right-wing YouTuber for allegedly inciting violence and making threatening remarks against CJI B.R. Gavai.

Suraj Kumar Bauddh, founder of the organization Mission Ambedkar, has petitioned the Attorney General under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The letter alleges that statements made by religious preacher Aniruddhacharya alias Aniruddh Ram Tiwari and YouTuber Ajeet Bharati amount to criminal contempt by scandalizing the court and interfering with the due course of judicial proceedings. This move escalates the discourse surrounding judicial security and the increasingly volatile nature of public criticism against the judiciary, fueled by social media.

The petition comes in the immediate aftermath of an unprecedented incident on October 6, where a 71-year-old lawyer, Rakesh Kishore, attempted to throw a shoe at CJI Gavai during open court proceedings. The act, which drew widespread condemnation from across the political and legal spectrum, has brought the issue of the judiciary's vulnerability to the forefront of national debate.

The Allegations of Incitement

The letter submitted by Mr. Bauddh meticulously details the actions of the two individuals, arguing they created a climate of hostility that preceded the physical attack in the Supreme Court.

The primary focus is a video that went viral on September 21, 2025, featuring Aniruddhacharya. The religious orator, known for his large social media following, allegedly issued a direct and violent threat in response to remarks made by CJI Gavai during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation concerning a Vishnu idol in Khajuraho. Aniruddhacharya is quoted as stating:

"If you want to get your chest ripped open, then let me know."

Mr. Bauddh’s letter asserts that this statement "was widely interpreted as an incitement to violence against the highest judicial authority of the country."

The petition also implicates YouTuber Ajeet Bharati, who has a history of making controversial statements about the judiciary. It alleges that on the same day as the attempted shoe attack, Bharati made "objectionable statements" on his X (formerly Twitter) account, mocking the Chief Justice.

Mr. Bauddh contends that these actions are not isolated criticisms but part of a calculated effort to intimidate the judiciary. His letter to the Attorney General states:

"The tone and tenor of such public provocation are extremely dangerous, and these posts have gone viral, creating heated debates and escalating tensions. Such behavior is unprecedented in the history of the Supreme Court of India. If such individuals are not brought to justice, the independence of the judiciary and the foundation of our democracy could be placed in peril."

Legal Framework: The Role of the Attorney General

The initiation of criminal contempt proceedings is a legally circumscribed process. Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, stipulates that the Supreme Court or a High Court can take action for criminal contempt either on its own motion (suo motu) or on a motion made by the Advocate-General. For a private citizen to initiate such proceedings, the written consent of the Attorney General (for matters in the Supreme Court) or the Advocate-General (for High Courts) is mandatory.

The Supreme Court, in cases like P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker , has clarified that the Attorney General's role is not merely a formality but a crucial safeguard. The AG acts as a filter to prevent frivolous or vexatious petitions from flooding the courts, ensuring that only substantive matters that genuinely undermine the authority of the judiciary are pursued.

The Attorney General will now have to assess whether the statements made by Aniruddhacharya and Bharati prima facie constitute criminal contempt. This involves determining if their words have the tendency to scandalize the court, lower its authority, or interfere with the administration of justice. The AG's decision to grant or withhold consent will be a critical juncture in this case.

Context: The Vishnu Idol Case and the CJI's Remarks

The controversy stems from a PIL filed by petitioner Rakesh Dalal seeking the restoration of a 7-foot decapitated idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari temple in Khajuraho, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The bench, led by CJI Gavai, dismissed the petition, terming it "publicity interest litigation."

During the hearing, the CJI's off-the-cuff remark, "Go and ask the deity itself to do something now. You say you are a staunch devotee of Lord Vishnu. So go and pray now," was widely circulated and decontextualized on social media platforms.

This led to a significant online backlash, with social media campaigns trending hashtags like #ImpeachTheCJI. On September 18, well before the shoe-throwing incident, CJI Gavai addressed the controversy in court, clarifying that his remarks were misconstrued. He stressed that his comments were made in the legal context that the temple fell under the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), and the court could not grant the specific relief sought. "I have respect for all religions," the CJI stated, attempting to quell the outrage. However, the clarification did little to stop the vitriolic online commentary, which Mr. Bauddh's letter now links to the subsequent physical threat in the courtroom.

A Judiciary Under Siege?

The attempted attack on CJI Gavai and the alleged incitement preceding it have sent shockwaves through the legal community. The Bar Council of India acted swiftly, suspending the license of the lawyer involved, Rakesh Kishore. The Supreme Court Bar Association and other prominent legal bodies issued strong condemnations, expressing solidarity with the Chief Justice.

The incident underscores a growing global trend of attacks, both verbal and physical, on judicial institutions. In an era of social media, judicial pronouncements are often stripped of legal nuance and presented to the public in a polarized, inflammatory manner. This environment, legal experts argue, not only endangers the personal safety of judges but also poses a grave threat to the fearless and impartial discharge of judicial duties.

Mr. Bauddh's plea to the Attorney General encapsulates this concern, arguing that failure to act would create an "embargo in the fearless discharge of judicial responsibilities." His letter concludes with a plea to uphold the sanctity of the institution:

"In light of the above, it is request you to give consent in writing to initiate the proceedings for Criminal Contempt against Aniruddhacharya alias Aniruddh Ram Tiwari and Ajeet Bharati... to uphold the dignity, independence, and safety of our judiciary."

The Attorney General's decision is now awaited. It will not only determine the fate of this specific petition but will also send a powerful message about the permissible limits of public discourse concerning the judiciary in a democratic society.