Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Monday questioned whether it could initiate contempt proceedings against advocate Rakesh Kishore, who attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on October 6, when the CJI himself had chosen to pardon the act.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) seeking criminal contempt action against Kishore and a John Doe order to restrain social media glorification of the incident.

Appearing for the SCBA, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh said that while the CJI had initially decided not to press charges, Kishore later gave media interviews boasting about his act and vowing to repeat it. “This whole thing is being glorified. The court has sufficient powers to ensure it does not happen again,” Singh submitted.

Justice Surya Kant acknowledged that Kishore's conduct “amounted to serious and grave criminal contempt,” but questioned whether the Court should pursue the matter when the CJI had already exercised leniency. “But when Hon'ble CJI has pardoned...we are inclined to examine the John Doe order aspect," Justice Kant said.

Singh contended that the CJI's pardon was in his “individual capacity” and could not bind the institution. "That's in his individual capacity...we being integral part of this institution can't let the incident go...people are making jokes about this. If he does not express remorse, send him to jail from here only," Singh said. Singh added, "Because CJI let him go, he was emboldened. If he was taken to jail that very day, this glorification might not have happened."

Justice Kant, however, asked why the Court should “give so much importance to this person,” observing that excessive attention might only amplify his notoriety.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi then raised a key legal question: whether contempt proceedings can be initiated by another bench once the presiding judge who faced the act has chosen not to do so.

“Throwing of a shoe or shouting slogans are contemptuous acts on the face of the court under Section 14. In such cases, it is left to the judge concerned to decide whether to initiate contempt. The CJI in his magnanimity chose to ignore. Is it within the domain of another bench or even the Attorney General to give consent for contempt? Please see Section 15,” Justice Bagchi remarked.

Singh repeated that not pursuing action was only a personal view of the CJI and cannot be seen as an institutional response.

Justice Kant replied that since the CJI had opted not to proceed under Section 14, it may not be open to any other authority to revive the issue. “That's the end of contempt on the face of the court,” he said.

Singh argued that the subsequent conduct of Kishore such as his public statements and glorification of the act constituted a fresh offence. “CJI condoned one act of his...what he is doing thereafter...that CJI could not have been aware of. This could not have come to CJI's mind when he let it off as one-off incident. He is saying as if Lord asked him to do it," Singh said.

Justice Kant agreed that glorification of the act raised a “serious concern” and said the Court would examine whether preventive guidelines could be framed. “With your suggestions, we would like to lay down guidelines. But giving undue importance to one individual will rather glorify him,” he observed.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, supporting the Bar's concern, advised caution against reigniting the controversy. “His shelf life in social media is for a few more days. With issuance of notice, it might be extended. He might start playing the victim,” Mehta said.

Justice Kant said that any “instant punitive measure” on the day of the incident “might have flared up irresponsible people” and that the Court should now focus on preventive steps.

Singh said that if the Court was not taking any action, "tomorrow he may say SC did not have guts to [take action]." "We deliberated in Executive Committee if this should not be pursued further...but this institution is being taken as a joke," he added.

The bench ultimately decided not to proceed with criminal contempt for now and said it would consider issuing guidelines to prevent the glorification of such acts. The matter was adjourned for a week. It also dismissed a separate writ petition on the issue filed by evangelist Dr K.A. Paul as not maintainable.

Background

In an unusual incident at the Supreme Court on October 6, a person, later identified as Advocate Rakesh Kishore, attempted to throw an object at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai while the judge was holding Court.

As per accounts of lawyers present in the Chief Justice's Court at the time, Kishore shouted slogans but was quickly escorted out of the courtroom by security personnel. He reportedly raised the slogan - “Sanatan Dharam ka apmaan nahi sahega Hindustan” (“India will not tolerate disrespect towards Sanatan Dharma”) while being removed from the courtroom.

The incident shocked and attracted widespread criticism from the legal community. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Opposition Leader Rahul Gandhi, Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge, Chief Ministers MK Stalin, Pinarayi Vijayan, Siddaramaiah, Revanth Reddy, Mamata Banerjee, among other political leaders, also condemned the act and expressed solidarity with the CJI.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court Bar Association filed a petition seeking criminal contempt proceedings against Kishore. On October 16, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh (SCBA President) mentioned the matter before Justice Kant's bench, informing that the Attorney General for India had granted consent to initiate the contempt proceedings. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta also backed the plea.

However, the bench expressed reservations about pursuing contempt action, wondering if it would revive the issue again. Pointing out that CJI Gavai himself had decided not to pursue action against Kishore, the bench suggested that it would be wise to let the issue die its natural death. It also wondered if the Court should spend time on the matter at the cost of more pressing cases.

SCBA however stressed that the issue related to the honor of the institution and pointed out that Kishore was giving media statements justifying his act. It also raised concerns about social media users who were glorifying the attack on the CJI and sought a "John Doe" order against such posts. Accordingly, the matter came to be listed.

Case Title: SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION v. RAKESH KISHORE | CONMT.PET.(Crl.) No. 1/2025