Attack on Judiciary: Lawyer Suspended After Attempted Shoe Assault on CJI Gavai

NEW DELHI – In an unprecedented and shocking assault on the dignity of the judiciary, a 71-year-old suspended advocate, Rakesh Kishore, attempted to hurl his shoe at the Chief Justice of India, B.R. Gavai, during live proceedings in the Supreme Court's prestigious Court Number 1. The incident, which unfolded on Monday, has sent shockwaves through the legal fraternity, triggering immediate disciplinary action and a nationwide debate on courtroom decorum, judicial security, and the boundaries of dissent.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) acted swiftly, issuing an immediate suspension of Kishore's licence to practice. The attempted assault, which was thwarted by alert security personnel, has been widely condemned by the bar, the government, and opposition leaders as a direct attack on the institution of justice itself. While the advocate remains unremorseful, the incident casts a long shadow, raising critical questions about professional conduct and the perceived sanctity of the nation's highest court.

The Unprecedented Courtroom Incident

The chaos erupted around 11:35 am as the bench, comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, was hearing the mentioning of cases. According to lawyers present, Rakesh Kishore approached the dais, removed his sports shoe, and raised his arm in a bid to throw it at the CJI.

Security staff stationed within the courtroom reacted instantaneously, restraining Kishore before the shoe could be thrown. As he was being forcibly removed, Kishore was heard shouting, “ Sanatan ka apman nahi sahenge ” (We will not tolerate the insult of Sanatan Dharma).

In a remarkable display of judicial temperament, Chief Justice Gavai remained entirely composed throughout the ordeal. He immediately instructed lawyers and court staff to proceed with the day's business. "Don't get distracted by all this. We are not distracted. These things do not affect me," the Chief Justice remarked, ensuring the court's proceedings continued uninterrupted. This calm demeanor was later lauded by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who personally spoke with the CJI, calling the attack "reprehensible" and stating it "angered every Indian."

The Catalyst: A Dismissed Public Interest Litigation

The advocate's actions were apparently motivated by remarks attributed to CJI Gavai during the dismissal of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on September 16. The plea, filed by petitioner Rakesh Dalal, sought directions for the reconstruction and consecration of a damaged seven-foot idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari Temple, part of the UNESCO World Heritage site at the Khajuraho temple complex in Madhya Pradesh.

The bench, headed by CJI Gavai, had dismissed the plea, terming it a "publicity interest litigation." During the hearing, the CJI questioned the petitioner's standing and the court's jurisdiction over a matter that squarely fell under the purview of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). "It's an archaeological find, whether ASI would permit such a thing to be done or not... there are various issues," the CJI had observed.

However, it was the CJI's other reported remarks that caused a stir. The bench reportedly told the petitioner, "Go and ask the deity himself to do something. If you are saying you are a strong devotee of Lord Vishnu, then you pray and do some meditation."

Rakesh Kishore, the suspended advocate, cited these comments as the direct cause of his actions. In a statement to news agencies, he expressed no remorse. "Don't provide relief to the petitioner, but don't mock him either... I was hurt... I was not inebriated; this was my reaction to his action... I am not fearful. I don't regret what happened," Kishore stated. He claimed he acted under "divine direction" and that his actions carried "a hidden message."

Notably, CJI Gavai later clarified that he never made the comments attributed to him by social media, highlighting the potential for misinterpretation and the spread of misinformation to fuel such extreme reactions.

Swift Disciplinary Action and Legal Ramifications

The response from the legal community's regulatory body was swift and decisive. The Bar Council of India (BCI), in an order issued by its Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, suspended Rakesh Kishore with immediate effect, debarring him from practicing in any court or tribunal in India.

The BCI's order explicitly stated that Kishore’s conduct "is inconsistent with the dignity of the court" and constitutes a gross violation of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Rules on Professional Conduct and Etiquette. The council has initiated disciplinary proceedings and issued a show-cause notice, requiring Kishore to explain within 15 days why his suspension should not be continued.

While Delhi Police briefly detained Kishore, he was later released after verification as no formal complaint was filed. However, the incident raises significant legal questions, primarily concerning contempt of court. An act that scandalizes or lowers the authority of the court, or interferes with the due course of judicial proceedings, falls squarely within the definition of criminal contempt. The Supreme Court has the inherent power to initiate contempt proceedings suo motu for such an egregious act committed in its very presence ( in facie curiae ). The CJI's decision to "ignore it" and let the lawyer off with a warning likely prevented immediate contempt charges, but the option remains open.

A Broader Debate: Judicial Dignity and Professional Ethics

This incident transcends the actions of a single individual, forcing a necessary introspection within the legal profession. It underscores the non-negotiable principle of respect for the judiciary as an institution, which forms the bedrock of the rule of law. While lawyers are advocates for their clients and causes, their primary duty is to the court and the administration of justice. An act of physical aggression, no matter the perceived provocation, is a fundamental breach of that duty.

The attack has also brought into focus the delicate balance judges must strike when handling sensitive or emotionally charged cases, particularly those involving religion. The dismissal of the Khajuraho PIL highlights the court's role as a gatekeeper against frivolous or "publicity interest" litigation, a necessary function to preserve judicial resources. However, the perception of the court's language, whether accurate or misreported, clearly has the potential to incite extreme reactions in a polarized environment.

Ultimately, the attempted assault on Chief Justice Gavai serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities of our judicial system. It is not merely an attack on an individual but an affront to the institutional integrity and authority of the Supreme Court. The legal community's unanimous condemnation and the BCI's firm action are crucial first steps in reaffirming that while dissent and disagreement on legal principles are welcome, acts that undermine the majesty of the law will not be tolerated.