The Supreme Court on Monday expressed reluctance to initiate contempt proceedings against 71-year-old lawyer Rakesh Kishore, who attempted to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai earlier this month, questioning whether it would be proper for another bench to act when the CJI, “in his glorious magnanimity,” had already decided to let the matter rest.
“There is no doubt that the act was contemptuous on the face of it. The manner in which he acted cannot be pardoned. The subsequent acts aggravated his contempt. The only issue is that when the CJI has himself pardoned him, should we now initiate any action?” a bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked.
While Kishore’s conduct was contemptuous on the face of it, the bench remarked, giving him more attention would only glorify a person who “deserves the contempt of being ignored.”
“The architecture of the contempt is such that throwing of shoes or shouting slogans inside the court is contempt on the face of it under the Contempt of Courts Act. It is then left to the judge concerned whether it is prudent to invoke contempt or ignore it. In this case, in his glorious magnanimity, the CJI chose to ignore it,” it observed.
The court was hearing a petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against Kishore and formulation of guidelines for preventing and responding to such acts inside courtrooms.
SCBA president and senior advocate Vikas Singh, however, maintained that the issue went beyond personal affront to the CJI and concerned the dignity of the institution.
“That was done by the CJI in his personal capacity. We are here for the institution. This cannot be allowed to go on because it will bring disrespect and disrepute to the institution. Today, jokes and memes are being made,” Singh submitted.
The bench acknowledged Singh’s concerns but urged restraint, observing that a reactionary or “antagonistic approach” might be counter-productive.
“Why give importance to such a person? Anything that person does must be overlooked and thrown with the contempt it deserves. Giving undue importance to a person who deserves to be ignored can be counter-productive,” said the bench, adding that the Bar and the Bench could instead work on preventive measures and guidelines for safety and decorum in courtrooms.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta agreed that the decision to invoke contempt lay with the court but cautioned against giving the incident prolonged visibility. “It is for the court to take a call whether contempt should be initiated or not. I can only say that such materials come with a shelf life,” Mehta observed.
The bench then directed both Singh and Mehta to return next week with suggestions on broader institutional safeguards rather than punitive action, reiterating: “Guidelines can be issued for publication and for safety in courtrooms, but we are not sure whether an antagonistic approach can help the cause. That is why we said let it die a natural death.”
It emphasised that the focus should shift from punitive to preventive mechanisms, asking the Bar and the government to submit their proposals on measures for maintaining security, discipline and decorum in courtrooms.
On October 6, Kishore, an advocate later suspended by the Bar Council of India, rushed towards the dais during proceedings before CJI Gavai’s bench and attempted to remove his shoe before being restrained by security personnel. He was heard shouting, “Sanatan ka apmaan nahi sahenge (We will not tolerate any insult to Sanatan).”
Unfazed, the CJI resumed proceedings, remarking: “Don’t get distracted by all this. These things do not affect me.”
During a subsequent hearing, Justice Gavai described it as “a forgotten chapter”. Hearing a separate case with justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran, the CJI said he and his brother judge were “very shocked” by what happened but regarded it as “a forgotten chapter.” Justice Bhuyan, however, struck a different note, observing that the incident should not be brushed aside since it was “an affront to the institution of the judiciary with the CJI at the helm,” and that “the institution of CJI is not a joke.”
While leaders across political lines, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, condemned the act, Kishore showed no remorse, claiming that a “divine voice” prompted him to act after the CJI dismissed a petition concerning a temple idol at Khajuraho.
Last month, a bench comprising CJI Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran declined to entertain a petition filed by Rakesh Dalal, observing that the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). During the hearing, the CJI reportedly remarked to the petitioner’s lawyer: “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. It’s an archaeological site and ASI needs to give permission etc. Sorry.”
The CJI’s oral remarks during that hearing sparked social media outrage, prompting him to clarify in open court on September 18 that his comments were misconstrued and that he respected all religions.
The SCBA subsequently filed its petition seeking contempt action and security protocols for courtrooms. Earlier, Attorney General R Venkataramani had granted his consent for contempt proceedings, saying the act affected the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court.
However, the Justice Kant-bench has consistently maintained that reviving the issue would only amplify it. During an earlier hearing on October 16, the court remarked that “publicity-hungry individuals” should not be given a platform and cautioned that contempt proceedings could “monetise outrage” on social media.
“Unfortunately, many portals have become money-spinning ventures. Algorithms are programmed to exploit outrage. The moment we initiate proceedings, it will be monetised again,” Justice Kant observed at the time.
