The recent Supreme Court incident, where a lawyer threw a shoe at the Chief Justice citing religious sentiment, goes beyond mere misconduct — it strikes at the core principles that allow advocates to argue and challenge within the law

Robert Kennedy famously stated, “Whenever men take the law into their own hands, the loser is the law. And when the law loses, freedom languishes.” This is particularly relevant when the said “men” in question are the lawyers themselves, i.e, a person who is trained and qualified to advise people about the law and to represent them in court. Therefore, for lawyers themselves, to renege on that professional faith of oath to uphold the majesty of justice is to betray that very oath that gave them that power to litigate, fair and square.

Lawyers in India sign a written declaration and are bound by the rules as framed by the Bar Council of India. As an advocate in the State Bar Council, the declaration reads, “I shall uphold the Constitution of India, the laws of the land, and the standards of professional conduct and etiquette laid down by the Bar Council of India.” While most uphold the required professionalism and etiquette, the conduct of some does regrettably fall short of the same and therefore can (and must) lead to disciplinary action, including suspension or disbarment. One such action that came to light recently was of a lawyer throwing a shoe at the Chief Justice of India, after ostensibly being angered by the judge’s purported remarks about a Hindu god.

Not only was it a serious breach of security, propriety and dignity, but also a public insult to the highest chair of justice of the land. While the Chief Justice handled the situation with a great amount of equanimity, composure and maturity by insisting that the arguments continue and refusing to press charges against the lawyer, regrettably the lawyer remained unrepentant and insisted upon his justification with the same line that he was heard saying repeatedly as he was dragged away by the security staff, i.e., “Sanatan ka apmaan nahi sahenge” (We will not tolerate disrespect to Sanatan).

Thankfully, the Bar and the lawyer community came down heavily on the action of the said lawyer and suspended him.However, such emboldened actions and optics make for a frightening picture, as intolerance, hate and fanaticism seem to have engulfed society, sparing no one — not even the practitioners in the highest court of the land. The ‘normalcy’ with which the lawyer sought to rationalise his action made a mockery of what lawyers fundamentally do, i.e., argue for justice within the contours of the law of the land, and not beyond it. The age-old debate of faith reigning over all laws of the land (perhaps including the Constitution itself) made a return, as the errant lawyer sought to couch his arguments in communal emotions. A 71-year-old self-appointed warrior of the lofty Sanatan Dharma thought it befitting to choose the path of violence to settle a difference of point of view.

Thankfully, no less than the Prime Minister himself strongly condemned the incident in strongly worded terms, stripping away the act from any sort of whataboutery justification that seems to be the norm in these increasingly partisan times.

His statement that “there is no place for such reprehensible acts in our society” and that “it has angered every Indian” was timely and unambiguous. Many who either privately lauded the vigilante act of the lawyer or even sat on the fence whilst judging the merits of the act were stripped of that legitimacy as, notwithstanding the presumed “hurt” imagined by the lawyer on account of the justice’s comment, nothing can justify taking the law into one’s own hands, that too by a practitioner of law. It is a fact that the legal system is in dire condition and seeks urgent redressal. It is equally true that many systemic issues like the collegium system need a relook to improve their functioning. Individually, one can also argue about the quality of judgments pronounced, i.e, if they are truly born out of legality and good faith, or out of other extraneous considerations like personal faith, biases, fear or post-retirement considerations.

However, taking the law into your own hands is the first step towards anarchy. To plead frustration with the slow pace of justice or even with the commentary (howsoever unsavoury) made by any of the parties during the course of argument is to surrender order, reason and process in favour of unbridled and unrestrained passions.

The consequences of normalising such acts will be vigilante justice that can be violently meted out in the streets. India can ill-afford a situation where such mobocracy reigns supreme.

While it was a clear case of contempt of court with the possible applicability of Section 352 (assault or use of criminal force) or Section 504 (intentional insult to provoke a breach of the peace), the magnanimity shown by the Chief Justice in not pressing the charges is exemplary and mature. Hopefully this forces a healthy introspection on us as citizens of a civilisational land to learn to deal with diversity of opinions and faiths. It is equally incumbent on those in positions of power to measure their own words and expressions more carefully, sensitively and responsibly, so as to avoid offending societal beliefs.

But the moment one believes that settling a score physically over the legal justice system is the way forward is when one forsakes the very system meant to protect all.

The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lieutenant Governor of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Puducherry