AG Sanctions Contempt Proceedings for Shoe-Throwing Incident at CJI's Bench, Citing 'Grave Affront to Rule of Law'

New Delhi – In a decisive move underscoring the imperative of upholding judicial sanctity, Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, has granted consent for the initiation of criminal contempt of court proceedings against Advocate Rakesh Kishore. The action follows an unprecedented incident on October 6, where Kishore allegedly attempted to throw a shoe at a Supreme Court bench presided over by the Chief Justice of India, B.R. Gavai.

The Attorney General's decision, articulated in a sternly worded letter, frames the advocate's conduct not merely as a breach of decorum but as a profound "affront to the dignity of the Court and to the rule of law itself." This development sets the stage for a significant legal examination of the boundaries of permissible conduct within the nation's highest court, juxtaposing the institution's need to protect its authority against the initial magnanimity displayed by the CJI himself.

---

The Incident and the Immediate Aftermath

The controversy erupted during court proceedings when Advocate Rakesh Kishore reportedly approached the dais and attempted to remove and hurl his shoe towards the bench led by CJI Gavai. As security personnel escorted him from the courtroom, he was heard shouting slogans concerning "Sanatan Dharma."

In a notable display of judicial restraint, CJI Gavai initially opted against pursuing formal action. He later remarked that while he and his fellow judge were "very shocked" by the event, they considered it "a forgotten chapter." This decision to de-escalate the situation was viewed by many as a testament to the institution's resilience. However, the sentiment among the Bar and the top law officers of the country was markedly different, leading to a formal request for the Attorney General's intervention.

Attorney General’s Sanction: A Defence of Institutional Majesty

The impetus for formal proceedings came from Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, in his capacity as the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). Under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General is a mandatory prerequisite for any person, other than the court itself (acting suo motu ), to initiate criminal contempt proceedings.

In his letter granting this crucial consent, AG Venkataramani provided a robust legal and institutional justification for pursuing the matter. He unequivocally stated that Kishore's actions fell within the definition of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Act, which includes "scandalising or tending to scandalise, or lowering or tending to lower the authority of, any court."

"No person can have any reason whatsoever to scandalise the Court. Throwing or attempting to throw any object aimed at the Hon'ble Judges, or shouting at judges to find fault with the conduct of proceedings will be scandalous," the AG wrote. He dismissed any potential justification offered by Kishore for his conduct, emphasising that such acts are inherently indefensible.

The Attorney General's analysis highlighted the broader implications of the incident, noting that such behaviour "strikes at the very foundation of the justice delivery system, and has a clear tendency to lower public confidence in the institution of the judiciary." He also pointedly observed Kishore's lack of contrition, stating, "From the materials placed on record, I find Mr. Rakesh Kishore, has not shown any repentance as regards the conduct in question as is evident from his subsequent utterances."

The Matter Before the Court: A Confluence of Concerns

With the AG's consent secured, Vikas Singh promptly mentioned the matter before a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, seeking an urgent listing. His plea was strongly supported by Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, who argued that the "institutional integrity is at stake."

The Solicitor General also introduced a contemporary concern, flagging that the incident was being glorified by some individuals on social media platforms. This highlighted the risk that inaction could be misinterpreted as weakness, potentially emboldening similar acts of defiance.

The bench, led by Justice Kant, acknowledged these grave concerns while also referencing the CJI's "magnanimous" stance. In a nuanced exchange, the bench questioned whether reviving the issue for a formal hearing would inadvertently fuel the very social media discourse the law officers sought to condemn. "We will treat this matter uninfluenced by anything else," the court assured, agreeing to list the contempt petition after the Diwali vacations.

Legal Analysis: Contempt, Decorum, and the Role of the AG

The case against Rakesh Kishore hinges on the legal doctrine of "scandalising the court." This form of contempt is not intended to protect the personal dignity of individual judges but to safeguard the authority and public image of the judicial institution itself. The core legal test is whether the act in question is calculated to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice or the due administration of law.

The Attorney General's detailed consent letter serves as a foundational document for the prosecution. By concluding that Kishore's acts were "calculated to demean the majesty and authority of the Supreme Court," he has laid the groundwork for the petitioners to argue that the conduct transcends a mere outburst and constitutes a deliberate attack on the judiciary.

This incident also illuminates the vital, albeit often behind-the-scenes, role of the Attorney General as a constitutional gatekeeper. The requirement for AG consent under Section 15 acts as a filter to prevent frivolous or vexatious contempt petitions, ensuring that only matters of significant institutional import proceed to judicial scrutiny. Here, the AG has clearly determined that Kishore's actions meet this high threshold.

The forthcoming proceedings will likely navigate the delicate balance between punishing conduct that undermines the rule of law and the principle of judicial forbearance. While the CJI’s initial reaction was one of grace, the collective view of the Bar and the government's top law officers indicates a consensus that such a direct physical affront cannot be ignored without risking long-term damage to the institution's authority. The Supreme Court's decision to list the matter suggests it concurs that a formal judicial response is warranted, irrespective of the CJI's personal inclination to move past the incident.