BCI Suspends Advocate's License Over Attempted Shoe Attack on CJI

NEW DELHI – The Bar Council of India (BCI) has imposed an immediate suspension on Advocate Rakesh Kishore, following a shocking incident on October 6, 2025, in which he attempted to hurl his shoe at the Chief Justice of India, B.R. Gavai, during live proceedings in the Supreme Court. The swift and decisive action underscores a zero-tolerance policy towards acts that undermine the dignity of the judiciary.

The BCI's interim order, issued under the Advocates Act, 1961, and its own rules on professional conduct, debars Mr. Kishore from practicing in any court, tribunal, or legal authority across India pending the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. The incident has sent ripples through the legal fraternity, igniting discussions on professional ethics, courtroom security, and the impact of public discourse on the conduct of legal professionals.

The Courtroom Disruption

The unprecedented event unfolded around 11:35 a.m. in the packed Courtroom No. 1 of the Supreme Court. According to multiple sources and the BCI's official order, Advocate Rakesh Kishore, enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi since 2009, approached the dais, removed one of his sports shoes, and attempted to throw it towards the bench presided over by Chief Justice Gavai.

Alert security personnel intervened instantly, detaining Mr. Kishore before the object could be thrown. As he was escorted out of the courtroom, he was heard shouting, "Sanatan ka apman nahi sahenge" ("We will not tolerate the insult of Sanatan Dharma"), revealing the apparent motive behind his actions.

Despite the disruption, the bench, which also included Justice Vinod Chandran, remained composed. One report noted the presiding Justice calmly stating, "Don't get distracted by all this. These things do not affect me. Continue with the hearing," ensuring that the administration of justice was not derailed. The Chief Justice later met with the Secretary-General and security officials to review the incident and existing protocols.

Mr. Kishore was detained and questioned by Delhi Police for several hours but was later released after the Supreme Court's Registrar General declined to press formal charges against him.

The BCI's Firm Response and Legal Framework

The BCI, the apex regulatory body for the legal profession in India, acted with remarkable speed. In an interim order signed by Chairman and Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, the council declared Mr. Kishore's conduct a prima facie violation of professional standards.

The order stated, “The conduct is, on the face of the record, inconsistent with the... rules and the dignity of the court.”

The BCI invoked its powers under the Advocates Act, 1961, and specifically cited Chapter II (Part VI) of the Bar Council of India Rules on Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette. The relevant provisions—Rules 1, 2, and 3 of Section I—mandate that an advocate must: 1. Conduct themselves with dignity and self-respect. 2. Maintain a respectful attitude towards the Courts. 3. Refrain from using illegal or improper means to influence judicial proceedings.

Mr. Kishore’s actions were deemed a direct contravention of these foundational principles. The suspension order has been circulated to the registries of the Supreme Court, all High Courts, and District Courts, along with all major Bar Associations. The Bar Council of Delhi has been directed to enforce the order, update Mr. Kishore's status on its official rolls, and ensure all court-issued access passes are rendered inoperative during the suspension.

A show-cause notice is set to be issued, requiring Mr. Kishore to respond within 15 days and explain why the suspension should not be made permanent and why further disciplinary action should not be taken. He is also required to file an affidavit of compliance within 48 hours of receiving the order, confirming he is not appearing in any legal matters.

Context: The 'Sanatan Dharma' Controversy

The advocate's outburst appears to be linked to remarks made by CJI Gavai during a hearing in September concerning a plea for the restoration of a damaged 7-foot Vishnu idol at the Javari temple in Madhya Pradesh. While dismissing what he deemed "publicity interest litigation," the Chief Justice had reportedly remarked, "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."

These comments drew criticism from certain sections of the public and the legal community, who perceived them as insensitive. Mr. Kishore’s actions and his slogan in the courtroom strongly suggest his protest was a direct, albeit highly inappropriate, response to this earlier judicial observation. During police questioning, he reportedly confirmed his unhappiness with the CJI's remarks and was found in possession of a note that read, “Mera sandesh har Sanatani ke liye hai… Sanatan dharma ka apmaan nahi sahega Hindustan” (My message is for every Sanatani... India will not tolerate the insult of Sanatan Dharma).

Broader Implications and Reactions

The incident has prompted strong condemnation from across the legal spectrum. Both the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) issued statements condemning the act as "a direct assault on the independence and dignity of the judiciary."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta described the event as "unfortunate" and attributed it to the growing influence of online disinformation. In a statement, he remarked, “This is the result of misinformation in social media.” Mr. Mehta praised the Chief Justice's composed response as a reflection of the "majesty of the highest court of the country" but cautioned that "such magnanimity should not be misread as a sign of weakness."

The Solicitor General also defended the Chief Justice's record, noting his deep respect for all religions. He characterized the advocate's actions as a publicity stunt, stating, “It appears to be an act of some attention-seeker wanting cheap publicity.”

This event serves as a critical case study in professional ethics. It highlights the non-negotiable duty of advocates to uphold the dignity of the court, irrespective of their personal grievances or ideological disagreements with judicial pronouncements. The BCI's immediate and stringent response sends an unequivocal message that such behavior constitutes grave professional misconduct and will not be tolerated. The ensuing disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Kishore will be closely watched by the legal community as a benchmark for upholding the sanctity of judicial institutions.