AG's Consent Sought for Criminal Contempt Proceedings Following Attempted Attack on CJI Gavai

New Delhi – In the wake of an unprecedented attempt to physically assault the Chief Justice of India, a formal request has been made to the Attorney General of India, R. Venkataramani, seeking consent to initiate criminal contempt of court proceedings against two public figures for allegedly inciting violence and hatred against the judiciary. The move underscores a growing national debate on the security of judges, the limits of free speech, and the chilling effect of public vilification on judicial independence.

Suraj Kumar Bauddh, the founder of the organization Mission Ambedkar, has petitioned the Attorney General under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The letter identifies religious orator Aniruddhacharya (also known as Aniruddh Ram Tiwari) and right-wing YouTuber Ajeet Bharati as individuals whose public statements allegedly fueled the hostile environment that culminated in the courtroom incident on October 6.

This legal step follows a shocking event where a 71-year-old lawyer, Rakesh Kishore, attempted to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice B.R. Gavai during live court proceedings. While being removed, Kishore shouted that "insults to Sanatan Dharma would not be tolerated." The Bar Council of India has since suspended his license to practice.

The Allegations of Incitement

The petition to the Attorney General meticulously links the attempted attack to a preceding wave of online rhetoric targeting the Chief Justice. It centers on a viral video from September 21, 2025, in which Aniruddhacharya is accused of issuing a direct and violent threat against the CJI.

"On September 21, 2025, a video featuring religious orator Aniruddhacharya alias Aniruddh Ram Tiwari went viral on social media, in which he issued a direct threat against the Chief Justice of India, stating, 'If you want to get your chest ripped open, then let me know,'" the letter details.

This statement was made in response to remarks attributed to CJI Gavai during the hearing of the "Vishnu Idol Case," which have been widely circulated and allegedly decontextualized on social media.

The petition further alleges that on the very day of the attempted assault, YouTuber Ajeet Bharati published "objectionable statements" on his social media accounts, which are claimed to have further inflamed the situation and mocked the head of the Indian judiciary.

Legal Framework: The Contours of Criminal Contempt

The request hinges on Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which governs the procedure for taking cognizance of criminal contempt. Criminal contempt, as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act, includes any publication or act which "scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court," or "interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding," or "obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner."

For a private citizen like Bauddh to initiate such proceedings, the written consent of the Attorney General (or the Solicitor General) is a mandatory prerequisite. This procedural safeguard is designed to prevent frivolous or vexatious litigation and ensures that contempt powers are invoked only in substantive cases that genuinely threaten the administration of justice. The AG acts as a filter, assessing if a prima facie case for contempt is made out that warrants the Supreme Court's attention.

In his letter, Bauddh argues that the actions of Aniruddhacharya and Bharati fall squarely within this definition, constituting a grave threat to the judiciary's ability to function.

"These statements and actions are aimed at provoking violence against the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and other judges," the letter asserts. "The tone and tenor of such public provocation are extremely dangerous... 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."

The Context: The Vishnu Idol Case Remarks

The controversy stems from a public interest litigation seeking the restoration of a decapitated 7-foot idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari temple in Khajuraho, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The bench, led by CJI Gavai, dismissed the plea. During the hearing, the CJI made remarks directed at the petitioner, which were subsequently isolated and amplified on social media, sparking outrage among certain groups.

The sources indicate that the CJI, on September 18, had already clarified his comments in open court, stating they were made in the specific legal context that the temple fell under the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), limiting the court's power to grant the relief sought. He reportedly stressed his "respect for all religions." Despite this clarification, the narrative of judicial disrespect for religious sentiments gained traction, fueling online campaigns calling for the CJI's impeachment.

Implications for the Judiciary and Legal Profession

The attempted attack and the subsequent call for contempt action have sent shockwaves through the legal community. The incident has drawn widespread condemnation from across the political spectrum, including from Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Opposition Leader Rahul Gandhi, as well as from the Supreme Court Bar Association, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, and numerous other bar bodies.

For legal professionals, this episode raises profound questions: 1. Judicial Security: It highlights the physical vulnerability of judges and the urgent need to address security protocols, particularly in an era of social media-fueled outrage. 2. Freedom of Speech vs. Contempt: The Attorney General's decision will be a crucial test of the delicate balance between the constitutional right to freedom of expression and the judiciary's power to protect itself from attacks that undermine its authority and obstruct justice. While criticism of judgments is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy, the petition argues that the statements in question cross the line from critique to direct incitement. 3. The Role of Social Media: The case exemplifies how judicial remarks, stripped of their legal context, can be weaponized online to create dangerous and misleading narratives that can have real-world consequences. It may prompt a broader discussion on the judiciary's engagement with public communication and the responsibility of social media platforms.

The Attorney General, R. Venkataramani, now faces the critical task of evaluating whether the statements by Aniruddhacharya and Ajeet Bharati constitute a prima facie case of criminal contempt. His decision will not only determine the fate of this specific petition but will also send a powerful signal regarding the state's stance on protecting judicial institutions from intimidation and scandalization in the digital age.