Delhi High Court Condemns Shoe Attack on CJI, Defers to Supreme Court on Plea to Remove Videos

New Delhi – The Delhi High Court on Monday voiced its strong condemnation of the recent incident where a lawyer hurled a shoe at Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, describing it as an act that has "hurt not only the members of the bar but everybody." While expressing deep concern over the matter, a division bench directed the petitioner—who sought the removal of videos of the incident from social media—to intervene in related proceedings already pending before the Supreme Court, citing the principle of judicial comity and the need to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Tejaswi Mohan. The plea sought urgent directions to formulate guidelines for the takedown of videos and social media posts depicting the shocking courtroom incident, which it argued undermined the dignity and authority of the judiciary.

A Strong Condemnation from the Bench

At the outset of the hearing, the petitioner's counsel highlighted that videos of the deplorable act continue to circulate widely on various online platforms, causing ongoing damage to the institution's reputation. Chief Justice Upadhyaya responded with an emphatic statement, underscoring the gravity with which the court viewed the incident.

“We share your concern, perhaps with more intensity," the Chief Justice remarked. "It has hurt not only the members of the bar but everybody. It is not the question of an individual. Such incident should not only be deprecated but appropriate measures need to be taken.”

This opening observation set the tone for the proceedings, establishing the High Court's alignment with the petitioner's sentiment but signaling a cautious approach regarding its own jurisdiction. The court's comments reflect a broader sentiment within the legal fraternity that such acts of blatant disrespect are an attack not on an individual judge but on the very foundations of the justice system.

The Issue of Parallel Proceedings

The central legal question before the High Court was not the reprehensibility of the act itself, but the procedural propriety of entertaining the PIL when the Supreme Court was already seized of the matter.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, representing the Union Government, brought to the court's attention that the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has already initiated a plea before the apex court seeking contempt of court action against the lawyer involved, Advocate Rakesh Kishore. The Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, has also granted consent for criminal contempt proceedings against him.

ASG Sharma argued that since the root cause of the issue was already under the Supreme Court's consideration, any ancillary matters, such as the removal of online content, should also be addressed within that forum. “If that is pending before the Supreme Court, it is a Supreme Court centric matter,” he submitted, suggesting that the petitioner's concerns would be most appropriately and effectively handled there.

He further pointed to news reports indicating that the Supreme Court was considering expanding the scope of its hearing. According to these reports, the apex court might not only issue guidelines to prevent future occurrences but also consider passing a "John Doe" order—an expansive injunction to pre-emptively block the dissemination of such content by known and unknown parties.

The High Court’s Rationale for Deference

Chief Justice Upadhyaya acknowledged the ASG's submissions and the information from media reports, concluding that judicial prudence dictated deferring to the Supreme Court. He articulated the court's reasoning, emphasizing the desire to avoid conflicting orders and ensure a consolidated, authoritative ruling from the highest court of the land.

“As per the news report, the Supreme Court has also said that it will consider passing a John Doe order and issue guidelines to prevent such incidents," the Chief Justice observed. He then directly advised the petitioner's counsel: "And if you intervene there, you may always press for issuance of order or directions to the Information and Broadcasting Ministry or the government agencies to frame some guidelines or protocols… You may apprise the Supreme Court of this matter being filed and seek intervention there.”

The bench made it clear that its reluctance to proceed was not due to a lack of will but a respect for judicial hierarchy and efficiency. “We are only thinking because of duplicity of proceedings… won't it be appropriate?" the Chief Justice queried. "We can see the Supreme Court intends to enlarge the scope of the matter. Just to avoid duplicity of proceedings… we would be happy to issue directions as prayed,” he added, signaling that the High Court would have otherwise been inclined to grant relief.

Legal Implications and Future Course

The Delhi High Court’s decision is a significant illustration of judicial comity. By keeping the writ petition pending while directing the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court, the court preserved its jurisdiction but prioritized a cohesive judicial response. This approach prevents potential fragmentation of legal remedies and reinforces the Supreme Court's primary role in matters concerning its own proceedings and dignity.

For legal practitioners, this case serves as a crucial reminder of the doctrine of forum non conveniens and the importance of approaching the most appropriate judicial body, especially when parallel proceedings exist. The petitioner's counsel, accepting the court's guidance, agreed to file an intervention application in the pending Supreme Court case.

The focus now shifts entirely to the Supreme Court, which is poised to address several critical issues: 1. Contempt Action: The primary action against the advocate for his conduct in court. 2. Preventive Guidelines: The formulation of a robust protocol to prevent a recurrence of such incidents, which may involve enhanced security measures and stricter codes of conduct. 3. Content Regulation and John Doe Orders: The potential issuance of a broad injunction against the dissemination of the videos. A John Doe order, if passed, would have far-reaching implications for social media platforms, internet service providers, and media outlets, setting a new precedent for regulating content that is deemed to scandalize the judiciary.

The Delhi High Court has scheduled the next hearing in this matter for December 4, by which time the petitioner is expected to have made an application before the Supreme Court. The legal community will be watching closely as the apex court grapples with balancing the principles of free speech with the imperative of upholding the majesty and sanctity of the judicial process.