Supreme Court Shows Restraint in Contempt Case as Commentator Faces Legal Scrutiny

New Delhi – In a week marked by dual legal proceedings stemming from a single disruptive act, the Supreme Court of India has chosen judicial restraint by declining to initiate contempt action against a lawyer who attempted to hurl a shoe at the Chief Justice. Simultaneously, a YouTuber faces potential criminal charges, including offenses under the SC/ST Act, for his subsequent commentary on the incident, prompting him to seek judicial clarification.

The unfolding events present a compelling study in contrasts: the judiciary’s discretionary power in handling direct affronts to its authority versus the state's invocation of stringent criminal statutes against external criticism of a judge.

The Supreme Court's Decision: A "Natural Death" for Contempt

On Monday, October 27, 2025, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi addressed the aftermath of the October 6 incident where Advocate Rakesh Kishore attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai during live proceedings.

While unequivocally condemning the act, the bench opted against pursuing criminal contempt charges. "Shouting slogans in court and hurling shoes are clear cases of contempt of court but it all depends on the judge concerned under the law whether to proceed or not," the bench observed. The decision was rooted in the principle of judicial discretion and a desire to de-escalate the situation, with the court noting that CJI Gavai himself had refused to proceed against the lawyer. The bench concluded it was best to "let the incident die its own natural death," thereby preventing the lawyer from gaining further notoriety through protracted legal proceedings.

This approach highlights a nuanced application of contempt law, prioritizing the dignity of the court by refusing to amplify a disruptive act. By not issuing a contempt notice, the court effectively sidestepped a process that, in its own words, would "give unnecessary publicity" to the individual involved.

The Commentator's Predicament: From Online Critique to High Court Petition

The courtroom incident quickly spiraled into a wider controversy, largely fueled by online commentary. YouTuber and political commentator Ajeet Bharti posted a video on social media platform X, in which he reportedly made critical remarks about CJI Gavai. According to news sources, Bharti commented, “Gavai is a lousy, undeserving judge, and he should face a contempt (of court) case."

These remarks, coupled with other alleged comments circulated online, drew sharp criticism and, more significantly, the attention of law enforcement. While Noida Police briefly questioned and released Bharti on October 7, recent media reports indicated that the Punjab Police had registered a First Information Report (FIR) against him. The purported charges include provisions of the Indian Penal Code and, notably, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, allegedly for making casteist and inflammatory comments against CJI Gavai.

In response to these unconfirmed reports, Bharti has initiated pre-emptive legal action. He approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court with a petition, not to quash an FIR, but to simply obtain official confirmation from the State of Punjab on whether any such FIR has been registered against him.

High Court Proceedings: A "Roving Enquiry"?

The petition, titled Ajeet Bharti vs State of Punjab and Others , was heard by Justice Subhas Mehla on October 27. Bharti’s counsel, advocates Ashish Dixit and Shivam Tiwari, argued that their client had learned of the potential criminal action through a national newspaper and was seeking clarity from the state authorities.

The State of Punjab, represented by Additional Advocate General Jastej Singh, countered that the plea amounted to a "roving enquiry." The State's counsel argued that without a specific police station or district being named in the petition, it would be an onerous task to search for a potential FIR across the entire state.

The court, acknowledging the state's position, granted time for verification and adjourned the matter to November 3, 2025. By this date, the Punjab government is expected to clarify whether an FIR has been officially registered against Bharti anywhere within its jurisdiction.

Legal Implications and Analysis

The concurrent developments raise several critical legal questions for practitioners and the judiciary alike.

1. Discretion in Contempt Proceedings: The Supreme Court's decision underscores the inherent discretion vested in judges when faced with acts of contempt. The choice not to prosecute Advocate Kishore, while affirming that his actions constituted contempt, suggests a strategic preference for maintaining judicial decorum by avoiding a spectacle. This can be seen as a pragmatic application of the principle that the power of contempt should be used sparingly.

2. Freedom of Speech and Judicial Criticism: Ajeet Bharti's case navigates the treacherous boundary between permissible criticism of judicial figures and speech that may attract criminal sanction. While the law of contempt covers scandalizing the court, the invocation of the IPC and the SC/ST Act introduces a different dimension. If an FIR has indeed been filed under the SC/ST Act, the prosecution would need to establish not merely criticism, but that the comments were made with the intent to insult or intimidate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. This shifts the focus from the protection of the judicial institution to the protection of an individual judge's identity, a legally complex and sensitive area.

3. Jurisdictional Questions: The alleged involvement of the Punjab Police is a curious aspect of this case. The core incident and the initial commentary occurred in the Delhi-NCR region. The legal basis for Punjab's jurisdiction remains unclear and will likely be a key point of contention if and when the existence of an FIR is confirmed.

4. Proactive Legal Strategy: Bharti's petition to the High Court represents an increasingly common strategy for individuals in the public eye who face the threat of "litigation by media." By seeking official confirmation, he aims to move the matter from the realm of speculation to a formal legal arena where he can mount a structured defense. This proactive approach seeks to compel the state to clarify its stand, preventing a situation where an individual remains under the shadow of unconfirmed criminal proceedings.

As the legal community awaits the Punjab government's response on November 3, these parallel cases offer a rich, real-time case study on the judiciary's multifaceted response to challenges against its authority—one of internal restraint and another involving external criminal scrutiny. The outcomes will undoubtedly contribute to the ongoing discourse on contempt, free speech, and the accountability of both judicial and public figures in the digital age.