The Supreme Court on Thursday said that the incident involving an advocate’s attempt to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai earlier this month should be allowed to have a “natural death” rather than being kept alive on social media or by “publicity hungry” individuals, even as it agreed to examine whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the 71-year-old lawyer, Rakesh Kishore, after the Diwali break.
A bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi made the observation while hearing a mentioning by senior advocate Vikas Singh, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), who urged the top court to take suo motu cognisance and initiate contempt proceedings against Kishore for his act and for remaining unapologetic about it. Singh pointed out that social media platforms were repeatedly circulating the episode, giving it unnecessary traction.
“We are not against freedom of speech, but when such rights are exercised at the cost of the institution’s integrity and dignity, it assumes a different dimension,” the bench observed.
It added: “Our request to everyone is also to consider whether raking up the issue will help in reviving and giving fillip to publicity-hungry individuals…Let it die a natural death. Let it meet its fate with the contempt it deserves.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that Attorney General R Venkataramani had already granted his consent for initiating contempt proceedings, saying the incident had affected the institutional integrity of the court. “Social media platforms are popularising and even supporting such acts. It is a matter of institutional integrity,” said Mehta, backing Singh’s request.
The bench, however, noted that CJI Gavai himself had shown “magnanimity” by ignoring the episode and asking others to do the same. “CJI has been extremely kind and magnanimous in ignoring it. It shows his magnanimity,” Justice Kant said.
The bench cautioned that reviving the issue might serve only to amplify it. “Allow it to have a natural death. One of the ways is to make it face the same contempt and die on its own,” remarked the bench, warning that contempt proceedings could end up creating “another episode” and feed the social media cycle.
“Unfortunately, many of these portals have become money-spinning ventures. Algorithms are programmed to exploit our basal instincts and to monetise outrage. The moment we initiate proceedings, it will be monetised again,” observed the bench, urging lawyers not to “cooperate in monetising it.”
The bench also reflected on the need to preserve institutional dignity through conduct rather than punitive measures. “It is for us and our behaviour in court that we survive and get the respect of the people. That is the spirit the honourable CJI exhibited when he brushed it aside as an action of an irresponsible citizen,” the bench underscored.
As Singh and Mehta insisted that the matter requires consideration, Justice Kant agreed to consider the issue later, saying it would wait for a week and see if the matter still persisted in public discourse before taking a call. “Let us wait for a week and see if it still persists. We will hear it in the week after the Diwali break,” Justice Kant said. The top court will reopen on October 27 after a week-long Diwali break beginning on October 20.
The incident took place on October 6 when Kishore, a suspended advocate, suddenly approached the dais during court proceedings before the CJI’s bench and attempted to remove his shoe before being restrained by security personnel. As he was escorted out, he was heard shouting, “Sanatan ka apmaan nahi sahenge (We will not tolerate any insult to Sanatan).”
Unfazed, CJI Gavai had calmly resumed proceedings, telling lawyers, “Don’t get distracted by all this. These things do not affect me.” He later told the court, “For us, it is a forgotten chapter,” and refused to press any charges against Kishore, asking officials to “just ignore” the episode.
However, several members of the Bar had called the act an affront to the dignity of the institution. On October 8, a Supreme Court lawyer had written to the attorney general seeking consent to initiate contempt proceedings, calling the act one that “diminishes the majesty and authority of the Supreme Court.” The Bar Council of India subsequently suspended Kishore’s licence, while the SCBA revoked his temporary membership and access to court premises.
On October 9, CJI Gavai, responding publicly for the first time to the incident, told the court that he did not wish to take the matter further and had “forgotten about it.” 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.”
Even as Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Leaders from across party lines had condemned the October 6 incident, Kishore has shown no remorse for his conduct, claiming that a “divine voice” provoked him to act after the CJI dismissed a petition seeking restoration of a Lord Vishnu idol at Khajuraho.
Last month, a bench led by CJI Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran had declined to entertain a petition filed by one 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 had later 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.