Supreme Court To Weigh Institutional Honour In Contempt Plea Over Shoe Attack On CJI

NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court of India is set to confront a profound question of institutional integrity versus judicial magnanimity as it takes up a criminal contempt petition against an advocate who hurled a shoe at the Chief Justice of India. The case, which has sent shockwaves through the legal fraternity, forces a delicate balancing act between upholding the majesty of the court and the personal inclination of the Chief Justice to show restraint.

On October 27, a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi will hear the petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) seeking to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Advocate Rakesh Kishore. The hearing comes after a shocking incident on October 6, when the 71-year-old advocate threw his shoe towards Chief Justice B.R. Gavai during live court proceedings, marking a grave security breach and an unprecedented assault on the judiciary's dignity.

The case, titled SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION v. RAKESH KISHORE [CONMT.PET.(Crl.) No. 1/2025], places the judiciary in the challenging position of adjudicating an attack on its own highest office-holder.

The Incident and Immediate Aftermath

The events of October 6 were a stark departure from the decorum expected within the hallowed halls of the nation's apex court. In the middle of proceedings, Mr. Kishore, reportedly disgruntled, threw a shoe in the direction of the CJI-led bench. Chief Justice Gavai, however, maintained his composure, instructing security personnel to "just ignore" the incident and let the advocate off with a warning. This act of judicial restraint stood in contrast to the widespread condemnation that followed from all corners, including a call from Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the CJI, denouncing the attack as "reprehensible."

The Bar Council of India (BCI) acted swiftly, immediately suspending Mr. Kishore's license to practice law. However, the SCBA, led by its President, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, felt that a more robust institutional response was necessary to deter future acts and reaffirm the sanctity of the judicial process.

The SCBA's Plea and the Court's Initial Reservations

The SCBA's move to seek criminal contempt proceedings is predicated on the argument that the attack was not merely against an individual but against the institution itself. During a mentioning on October 16, Mr. Singh, with the backing of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, informed the bench that the Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, had granted the requisite consent to initiate the proceedings—a crucial step under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The Solicitor General underscored the gravity of the matter, stating, "it was a question of institutional integrity." This sentiment reflects the Bar's view that allowing such an act to go unpunished would set a dangerous precedent, potentially emboldening others and eroding public confidence in the judiciary.

However, the bench, led by Justice Kant, initially expressed significant reservations. Questioning the wisdom of pursuing the matter, the court wondered if it would merely "revive the issue again." Justice Kant pointedly noted that CJI Gavai himself had chosen not to pursue any action, suggesting it might be prudent to "let the issue have its natural death." The bench also raised concerns about judicial time, questioning whether it should be spent on this issue when more pressing cases await adjudication.

Mr. Singh was steadfast in his response, stressing that the petition pertained to "the honour of the institution." He brought a critical new dimension to the court's attention: the advocate's conduct post-incident. Mr. Singh highlighted that the "attacker was keeping on giving media statements justifying his act," and that a concerning trend of social media users "glorifying the attack" had emerged. This led the SCBA to also seek a "John Doe" order against such posts, requesting a broad injunction to curb the online celebration of an assault on the judiciary.

Legal Nuances: Contempt, Dignity, and Online Speech

The hearing on October 27 will delve into the core tenets of the law of contempt. The primary legal question is whether Mr. Kishore's act and subsequent justifications "scandalise or tend to scandalise, or lower or tend to lower the authority of any court," as defined under criminal contempt. The SCBA's petition argues that a physical assault on a judge during proceedings is a textbook example of such contempt, designed to intimidate the judiciary and undermine its authority.

The court’s initial hesitation brings to light the delicate balance between upholding the rule of law and avoiding the perception of being overly sensitive to criticism or attack. The principle of judicial magnanimity, where judges are expected to rise above personal slights, is a powerful tradition. CJI Gavai’s on-the-spot reaction was a classic example of this. Yet, the SCBA's stance posits that this incident transcends a personal affront and constitutes an attack on the very foundation of the judicial system.

The request for a "John Doe" order introduces a complex issue of online speech regulation. Such orders, typically used in intellectual property cases to target anonymous infringers, are sought here to prevent the glorification of violence against the judiciary. The court’s decision on this prayer could have far-reaching implications for how the judiciary manages its portrayal online and tackles coordinated campaigns that may lower its authority in the public eye.

An Interesting Confluence of Events

In a notable coincidence, the contempt hearing is being presided over by Justice Surya Kant, who, according to the memorandum of procedure and established tradition, is next in line to become the Chief Justice of India. The government has already initiated the process for his appointment, with CJI Gavai set to demit office on November 23. Justice Kant is expected to take charge as the 52nd CJI on November 24 and will have a tenure of nearly 15 months.

While legally distinct, this context adds a unique layer to the proceedings. The incoming Chief Justice is now part of a bench tasked with deciding the appropriate response to an attack on his predecessor and the institution he is poised to lead. The decision will not only set a legal precedent but will also signal the judiciary's stance on its own security and dignity under his future leadership.

As the legal community watches closely, the Supreme Court's handling of this petition will be a litmus test. It will reveal how the institution chooses to navigate the fine line between restraint and responsibility, and whether it will send a message that while judges may be magnanimous, the honour of the institution is non-negotiable.