The shoe hurling incident in the Supreme Court has shocked the nation. While the Chief Justice, displaying remarkable composure, refused to press charges and directed that the offending lawyer be let off with a warning; while the CJI’s response reflected personal magnanimity, it sets a dangerous precedent

In an unprecedented and shocking incident, a 71-year-old lawyer, Rakesh Kishore, took his shoe in his hand and tried to hurl it at Chief Justice of India B R Gavai on 6 October 2025, in full view of the ongoing court proceedings in the Supreme Court of India.

The CJI remained unfazed during and after the reprehensible incident. Expressing his gracious attitude, the CJI asked the court officials and security personnel present inside the courtroom to let off the offending lawyer with a warning, saying, “Don’t get disturbed by all this. We are not distracted. These things do not affect me.”

Subsequently, on 7 October 2025, the CJI, during the hearing of a batch of pleas seeking review and modification of the Vanashakti judgement, made observations that he and Justice K Vinod Chandran were shocked when a lawyer attempted to hurl a shoe at him on 6 October 2025, but the issue is now a “forgotten chapter.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta termed the act unpardonable but hailed the CJI for his magnanimity and “majesty.” The top law officer, in his overheated gesture, forgot to mention that the attack was not on an individual but on the Chief Justice of India, who is the custodian of the Constitution of India.

As such, this was an attack on the Constitution of India, the dignity of the judiciary and the Rule of Law. With this view, the CJI and the top law officer are legally and constitutionally responsible for initiating legal action under the prescribed and established law of the land to protect the dignity of the judiciary from being abused.

Any attempt to brand the episode as a “forgotten chapter” will not only bring disrepute to the judicial system but will set a wrong and damaging precedent. Therefore, no amount of magnanimity can here be justified.

The Condemnation of the Act

There are loud voices, including those of Narendra Modi and Sonia Gandhi, calling the act of Rakesh Kishore misconduct, reprehensible, disorderly and intemperate, but no one is voicing legal action against him, barring Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, who was sharing the Bench in the Vanashakti hearing. He differed with the course of action adopted towards the errant lawyer and said, “I have my own views on this. He is the CJI; it is not a matter of joke!” Justice Bhuyan said the attack was “an affront to the Supreme Court” and that due action should have been taken.

The Legal Action

The police interrogated Kishore for three hours inside the Supreme Court premises and then allowed him to go, saying that no formal complaint was received by them. Even his shoe, which should have been confiscated, was returned to Kishore respectfully.

Ironically, besides contempt of court, the incident attracts criminal action for assault, criminal force, criminal intimidation, defamation and parts of the terrorist act. If the same type of crime takes place on the street, the police swing into action, while for the crime committed in the highest temple of justice, the police remain inactive.

With regard to motive, the perpetrator claimed that he was unhappy with the CJI’s remarks during a recent hearing of a plea seeking the restoration of a Lord Vishnu idol in the Khajuraho temple complex in Madhya Pradesh. While leaving the courtroom, the erring lawyer allegedly raised a slogan, “Sanatan Dharm ka apman, nahi sahega Hindustan” (India will not tolerate the insult of Sanatan Dharm).

The Contempt of Court Act, 1971, was made for keeping the administration of justice pure and undefiled.

The Law on Contempt of Court

Contempt of Court can be civil or criminal in nature. Section 12(1) of the Act provides punishment for contempt of court. Section 14(1) provides for the procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or High Court: “When it is alleged, or appears to the Supreme Court or High Court upon its own view, that a person has been guilty of contempt committed in its presence or hearing, the Court may cause such person to be detained in custody and, at any time before the rising of the Court, on the same day, or as early as possible thereafter shall.”

With regard to contempt jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has held in Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 that the plenary power and contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Court came up for consideration of this Court and in that context Articles 129, 142, 144 and 215 of the Constitution were noticed.

The Court held that the courts of record enjoy power to punish for contempt as part of their inherent jurisdiction; the existence and availability of such power being essential to enable the courts to administer justice according to law in a regular, orderly and effective manner, to uphold the “majesty” of law and to prevent interference in the due administration of justice.

No Act of Parliament can take away that inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Record to punish for contempt. Power to investigate and punish for contempt of itself vesting in the Supreme Court flows from Articles 129 and 142(2) of the Constitution independently of Section 15 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

Rules Governing Contempt Proceedings

In exercise of the powers under Section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 145 of the Constitution of India and other powers enabling it in this behalf, the Supreme Court has made, with the approval of the President of India, rules called The Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975, which came into force on 29 May 2014.

Part I of the Rules includes Rule 2(1), which says that where contempt is committed in view or presence or hearing of the Court, the contemner may be punished by the Court before which it is committed, either forthwith or on such date as may be appointed by the Court in that behalf. (2) Pending the determination of the charge, the Court may direct that the contemner shall be detained in such custody as it may specify; provided that the contemner may be released on bail on such terms as the Court may direct.

In Part II, Rule 3 says that in the case of contempt other than the contempt referred to in Rule 2, the Court may take action: (a) suo motu, (b) on a petition made by the Attorney General, (c) on a petition made by any person, and in the case of a criminal contempt, with the consent in writing of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General.

Eroding Public Confidence

In State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Dr A Gopal Menon, 1996 (3) ALD 675: 1996 (2) Andh LD (Criminal) 386, it was held that “The test for determination to find out whether this kind of contempt has been committed is the act of having a tendency to pollute the fountain of justice and whether it has a tendency to destroy the confidence of the common man in the administration of justice.”

Refusal of Legal Action

With all such provisions and powers prescribed by the law of the land, the refusal of the prescribed legal action against the contemner is blasphemous.

The writer is an author and a legal journalist