An attempt to hurl a shoe at the CJI in the Supreme Court is a grave affront to judicial dignity. The assailant’s claim of “divine will” makes it even worse
The tolerance in the society is waning fast. People in disagreement do not mind showing their anger or assaulting the person they do not agree with. Lately the public life has become a risky business with ink thrown on the face to slap to hurling a shoe, the rogue elements are at fore and do not mind even if they are admonished for it; they are unapologetic (which gives them conviction), some do it for hogging limelight others out of their convictions but the effect is same — the civility in public life is tossed out of the window.
In a blatant attack on the sanctity of India’s highest Court, an advocate attempted to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice B R Gavai during a hearing. The act, followed by the assailant’s refusal to apologise and his claim of a “divine will,” sad as well disturbing. The advocate was disturbed because CJI had said things in Mauritius which were not to his liking and he felt that CJI had hurt his ‘Sanatan’ sentiments
This is an act which must be condemned by one and all but unfortunately there is a section which is supporting his actions. No matter what your religious or political inclinations are, this kind of dissent is not permissible in a civilized society. The condemnation is a constitutional imperative. The courtroom is a space of reason, not aggression. Judges must be free to perform their duties without fear of personal attack. Equally, dissenters have the right to question judgments and institutions — but through lawful, reasoned expression.
The hurling of footwear is not dissent, it is intimidation. It seeks not to argue, but to insult and coerce — a direct assault on the judiciary’s dignity and moral authority. When an individual attacks a judge, it is not only a personal affront but a symbolic strike at the root of the system. Treating such actions as harmless theatrics risks normalising hostility toward the courts and undermines the fragile fabric of institutional respect that sustains democracy.The attacker’s justification — that he acted in defence of Sanatan Dharma — reveals a more insidious challenge. Whether or not he belongs to an organised Hindutva group, his language mirrors an ideological climate that increasingly seeks to subordinate institutions to “religious sentiment.” When faith becomes a justification for violence, dissent morphs into coercion. The moment ideology demands submission instead of dialogue, democracy begins to decay. The right to protest does not include the right to intimidate.
Acts like this one threaten to convert disagreement into mob justice — a path that endangers not only judges but every citizen’s right to impartial adjudication. The response must therefore be firm and clear. Legal action — for contempt, criminal assault, and professional misconduct — is essential. At the same time, the judiciary and Bar must strengthen courtroom security without alienating public access. Civil society and political leaders must reaffirm that violence, even when cloaked in faith, is incompatible with the Indian ethos of tolerance and debate.
