Lawyer Tries to Hurl Shoe at CJI in Court, Gets Suspended
News THE ECONOMIC TIMES, livelaw.in, LAW, LAWYERS NEAR ME, LAWYERS NEAR BY ME, LIVE LAW, THE TIMES OF INDIA, HINDUSTAN TIMES, the indian express, LIVE LAW .IN
In a shocking courtroom outburst, an advocate attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice B.R. Gavai over alleged remarks on Lord Vishnu; Bar Council suspends him pending disciplinary action.
New Delhi : October 7, 2025
In an unprecedented and deeply disturbing incident, a lawyer attempted to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai inside the Supreme Court of India on Monday morning. The courtroom, usually a space of solemn deliberation, was stunned into silence as security personnel rushed to restrain the advocate — identified as Rakesh Kishore, a 71-year-old lawyer from Delhi.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) swiftly responded by suspending his licence pending disciplinary action, calling the act “an assault on the dignity of the judiciary and a black mark on the legal profession.”
The Outburst Inside the Courtroom
According to eyewitnesses, the incident occurred at approximately 11:35 a.m. in Court No. 1, while a bench comprising CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing a batch of petitions related to administrative orders.
Without prior provocation, the advocate — seated among lawyers in the visitors’ area — rose suddenly, removed his sports shoe, and flung it toward the bench while shouting slogans referencing Sanatan Dharma and alleged “insults to Lord Vishnu.”
The shoe missed its target, hitting the wooden barricade that separates the courtroom from the judges’ dais. Security officers immediately overpowered the lawyer and escorted him out.
Despite the commotion, the Chief Justice remained calm and reportedly remarked,
“Please don’t be distracted. Let us continue with our work.”
The proceedings were adjourned briefly before resuming under heightened security.
The Motive: Religion and Misinterpretation
Preliminary reports indicate that the lawyer’s act was driven by anger over remarks made by CJI Gavai during a previous hearing related to the restoration of a Lord Vishnu idol in Madhya Pradesh’s Khajuraho temple complex.
During that hearing, the CJI had reportedly told the petitioner, “You may go and ask Lord Vishnu himself to come and restore the idol,” in a light-hearted comment meant to indicate judicial limits on divine matters. However, the remark was widely circulated on social media — stripped of context — as a perceived mockery of religion.
By the next day, the statement had gone viral, prompting outrage from certain religious groups and fringe organizations. The accused lawyer later told media outlets that he had been “deeply offended” by what he saw as an insult to faith.
“I have no regrets,” he told reporters outside the court complex. “Judges should not speak lightly about God.”
However, senior lawyers across the board condemned the action, saying freedom of expression cannot justify violence inside the nation’s highest court.
Immediate Action by the Bar Council
Within hours, the Bar Council of India convened an emergency meeting and suspended Kishore’s licence to practice law across all courts and tribunals in the country.
In its official statement, the BCI said:
“The conduct of the said advocate is inconsistent with the dignity and decorum expected of members of the Bar. Such actions amount to gross professional misconduct under the Advocates Act.”
A disciplinary committee has been formed to investigate the incident. The advocate has been issued a show-cause notice, giving him 15 days to explain why his licence should not be permanently revoked.
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) also condemned the attack, calling it “an outrageous affront to judicial independence.”
“Disagreement with a judgment or observation can never justify physical aggression. Lawyers are guardians of the Constitution, not agitators within the courtroom,” said SCBA President Adish C. Aggarwala in a press briefing.
Political and Legal Community Reactions
The act has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts, political leaders, and jurists nationwide.
Former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi called it “a shameful moment for the legal fraternity,” urging immediate reforms in courtroom security.
“The Supreme Court is not just another institution — it’s the temple of justice. Any attack inside its walls is an attack on India’s rule of law,” he said.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising emphasized that the outrage must not be allowed to spiral into religious polarization.
“There’s a clear difference between critique of a remark and criminal assault. No faith is disrespected by one comment — but violence disrespects every faith.”
Even Chief Ministers and political figures weighed in. Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan termed the attack “poisonous intolerance seeping into the professional class,” while several BJP leaders condemned the lawyer’s behavior as “indefensible and disgraceful.”
Courtroom Security Under Scrutiny
The incident has also reignited debate on the adequacy of security inside India’s apex court.
While lawyers undergo basic screening, items such as belts, pens, and mobile phones are often allowed. That a person could approach the Chief Justice with a shoe raised serious concerns about vulnerability in courtroom layouts and security staffing.
A retired Supreme Court marshal told media that the Court has no bulletproof or physical barrier between the bench and the audience in most courtrooms. “Judges rely on civility of officers and decorum of the Bar. When that fails, the risk becomes real,” he said.
Security has since been tightened, with marshals instructed to maintain a closer watch on participants and restrict physical proximity to the dais during hearings.
Legal Implications: Contempt and Misconduct
Legal experts believe the act constitutes criminal contempt of court, which under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is punishable with up to six months’ imprisonment and a fine.
Additionally, the Advocates Act, 1961 empowers bar councils to suspend or disbar lawyers for misconduct. If found guilty, the advocate could lose his licence permanently.
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave remarked:
“Throwing anything — even words — at the Bench is contemptuous. Throwing a shoe only makes it criminal.”
Several lawyers also pointed out that such behavior undermines the moral authority of the judiciary and damages public faith in due process.
Judicial Dignity and the Culture of Outrage
This episode comes amid a growing climate of intolerance where public figures, judges, and journalists face physical or verbal threats for their statements. Legal analysts note that the “culture of outrage” — amplified by social media — has made institutions more vulnerable to mob-style reactions.
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan Lokur commented:
“We are witnessing the erosion of respect — not just for judges, but for institutions. The Bar must introspect whether it’s enabling this culture.”
He added that judicial dignity is not about ego, but about maintaining public confidence.
“The judiciary stands only as long as citizens believe it’s beyond intimidation. Every lawyer has a duty to protect that sanctity.”
What Lies Ahead
Following the suspension, the Bar Council of India is expected to hold hearings to determine permanent disciplinary measures. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court registry has ordered a review of courtroom security protocols.
Police sources confirmed that while no First Information Report (FIR) has yet been registered, officials are reviewing CCTV footage for internal documentation and possible criminal proceedings.
The incident has prompted calls for mandatory psychological evaluations for advocates seeking courtroom access and stricter entry protocols for high-profile hearings.
The Supreme Court, on its part, is said to be maintaining a restrained approach, choosing not to escalate the issue legally but allowing the Bar Council’s disciplinary system to proceed.
Source:
