CJI shoe-throwing incident: Supreme Court moots preventive guidelines; refuses action against Rakesh Kishore for now

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to issue notice to Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who recently attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai.

Even as the Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was urged to issue notice in the matter, the Court said,

"We are not closing anything. Suggest preventive measures. We’ll take up after one week."

It also dismissed writ petitions filed in the matter, stating,

"WPs are dismissed as not maintainable. All the issues have been comprehensively raised by the SCBA."

When the matter was taken up, Senior Advocate and Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Vikas Singh said,

"When the incident happened, he was detained for a little while and then he was allowed to go...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."

Justice Kant remarked,

"The act is a severe and grave criminal contempt. The subsequent conduct aggravates the situation. Once the CJI himself has pardoned…"

Singh then argued,

"That is in his individual capacity. This is for the institution. We can’t let this incident go. People are making jokes. This can’t be allowed. This will bring a lot of disrespect to the institution...please issue notice. Let him express remorse. If he doesn’t, then he should be sent to jail."

"Why to give importance to that person?" Justice Kant asked.

Singh replied,

"It has become a joke in the society."

At this point, Justice Bagchi said,

"The Contempt of Courts Act makes a significant departure when it is contempt on the face of the Court. They are contemptuous under Section 14. In such cases, it is left to the judge concerned. And in this case, the CJI in his glorious magnanimity chose to ignore it. When he had chosen to ignore, is it within the domain of AG to give consent? Please see Section 15."

The judge then suggested that the Court can issue guidelines on preventive measures to ensure that the incident is not repeated, instead of initiating an "antagonistic process".

Justice Kant agreed, saying,

"The issue of glorification is there. We will definitely lay some guidelines. But today, giving undue importance to an individual…such kind of persons have no stake in the system…we will look at it with the same magnanimity that the CJI has shown."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta then said,

"So far as criminal contempt is concerned, it is the judge concerned, but when petition comes, it is your lordships decision that should prevail. Issuance of notice might extend his shelf life on social media. He might call himself a victim etc."

Singh added,

"There are disgruntled people of the country who will continue to do such things if no action is taken...tomorrow, he might say Supreme Court doesn’t have the guts to issue notice."

When the matter was earlier mentioned by Singh, SG Mehta said that Attorney General R Venkataramani had granted consent to initiate contempt proceedings, as required under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

However, the Bench declined to list the case immediately, observing that it was best to let the incident fade.

“Once we take this up, it will again be spoken about for weeks,” Justice Kant said.

Singh nevertheless pressed his request, saying that the Bar’s concern stemmed from the perceived attack on the institution.

“The angst of the Bar is because of the attack on the institution,” Singh said.

The Bench assured him that the Court shared the concern but preferred to maintain composure.

“We understand your concern and respect it,” Justice Kant said.

When Singh again requested that the contempt case be listed the following day, the Bench reiterated its reluctance to draw further attention to the incident.

“Let us see what happens in a week and read more saleable items,” Justice Kant remarked, prompting Justice Bagchi to add,

“After the vacation maybe, some other saleable items will come up.”

The October 6 incident, which led to strong reactions within the legal community, involved advocate Rakesh Kishore attempting to throw a shoe toward the dais of CJI Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran during court proceedings. The Bar Council of India subsequently suspended Kishore’s licence to practise law.

Kishore’s outburst was reportedly linked to CJI Gavai’s earlier remarks in a case concerning the restoration of a beheaded seven-foot idol of Lord Vishnu at Khajuraho. While dismissing that plea, the CJI had remarked that the litigant “go and ask the deity” for a solution - an observation that drew sharp criticism from some quarters for allegedly hurting religious sentiments.

Further controversy followed when, during a visit to Mauritius, CJI Gavai made comments critical of bulldozer demolitions in India, noting that the Supreme Court had stayed such actions. Kishore later cited these remarks in his media interactions, criticising the Chief Justice’s stance.