The Supreme Court on Monday declined to issue a contempt of court notice to advocate Rakesh Kishore, who attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai earlier this month.
Despite strong pleas from the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) to act decisively against the “glorification” of the incident, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi opted to defer the matter for one week. The Court stated it would consider “preventive measures” to avoid future disruptions rather than giving “undue importance” to the individual.
During the hearing, SCBA President Vikas Singh argued passionately for the court to take institutional action, noting that the CJI’s personal pardon was separate from the offense against the court itself.
“When the incident happened, he was detained for a little while and then he was allowed to go,” Singh said. “But his conduct thereafter…saying God has asked me to do it… I’ll do it again…this is being glorified! This glorification should not happen.”
Singh warned that inaction would “bring a lot of disrespect to the institution” and that “people are making jokes.” He pressed the bench to issue a notice, adding, “If he doesn’t, then he should be sent to jail.”
The bench, however, expressed deep reluctance to escalate the situation, citing the CJI’s own response. “The act is a severe and grave criminal contempt,” Justice Kant acknowledged. “Once the CJI himself has pardoned…”
“Why to give importance to that person?” Justice Kant asked, a sentiment echoed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. “Issuance of notice might extend his shelf life on social media,” Mehta cautioned. “He might call himself a victim etc.”
Justice Joymalya Bagchi suggested a different path, pointing to Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, which governs contempt “on the face of the Court.” He noted that such matters are “left to the judge concerned.”
“And in this case, the CJI in his glorious magnanimity chose to ignore it,” Justice Bagchi observed. He proposed that the Court issue guidelines on “preventive measures” instead of initiating an “antagonistic process.”
The bench ultimately agreed on this course, dismissing related writ petitions as “not maintainable.” “We are not closing anything. Suggest preventive measures. We’ll take up after one week,” Justice Kant stated, adding the court would “look at it with the same magnanimity that the CJI has shown.”
The controversy stems from an October 6 incident where advocate Kishore attempted to throw a shoe toward the dais of CJI Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran. The Bar Council of India has already suspended Kishore’s licence to practise law.
Kishore’s outburst was reportedly linked to two of the CJI’s recent remarks: one during a case about a beheaded idol in Khajuraho, where the CJI told the litigant to “go and ask the deity” for a solution, and separate comments made in Mauritius that were critical of bulldozer demolitions in India.
