Bar Council Suspends Lawyer for Attempting to Throw Shoe at CJI Gavai in Supreme Court

In an unprecedented incident that stunned the legal fraternity and the nation alike, the Bar Council of India (BCI) on Monday suspended advocate Rakesh Kishore from practicing in any court across the country with immediate effect, following allegations that he attempted to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai during proceedings in the Supreme Court.

The Incident Inside the Courtroom

According to initial reports, the incident occurred during a hearing before a Bench led by CJI Gavai. Advocate Rakesh Kishore, appearing in the matter, allegedly lost his composure and tried to throw a shoe towards the Chief Justice. Security personnel present in the courtroom immediately restrained him, and police officers took him into custody shortly thereafter.

Eyewitnesses reported that the lawyer shouted slogans claiming he would “not tolerate the insult of Sanatan Dharma” even as he was being escorted out. The incident disrupted proceedings for a brief period before normalcy was restored.

Immediate Disciplinary Action

Following the outburst, the Bar Council of India took swift disciplinary action, suspending Kishore’s license to practice law.
A statement from the BCI confirmed that the advocate had been barred from appearing before any court or tribunal until further orders. The Council stated that such behavior undermines the dignity of the judiciary and violates the code of professional ethics expected from members of the Bar.

However, sources within the Supreme Court indicated that CJI Gavai personally urged authorities to exercise restraint, reportedly expressing that no harsh punitive measures be taken against the lawyer. “Let it go,” the CJI is said to have remarked, indicating his willingness to forgive the incident.

Political and Public Reactions

The dramatic episode triggered widespread debate across political and social circles. Several leaders, including from the Congress and other opposition parties, condemned the incident, describing it as an “attack on judicial dignity.”
At the same time, sections of social media and political commentators linked the lawyer’s actions to rising tensions between religious sentiment and judicial interpretation in cases involving faith-related issues.

Some commentators also recalled earlier instances of perceived disrespect toward the judiciary — citing cases like that of activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who was fined Re 1 for contempt — to highlight what they termed “uneven accountability” in judicial discipline.

Underlying Context: The Khajuraho Vishnu Idol Case

The alleged provocation behind the outburst traces back to a September 16 order by a bench headed by CJI Gavai, which had dismissed a petition seeking the reinstallation of a seven-foot-tall idol of Lord Vishnu at the Jwari Temple in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh.
The petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) but was dismissed by the court as a “publicity interest litigation”, with the bench remarking that such issues should not be used to gain personal or political attention.

Reports suggest that the petitioner and several religious activists felt deeply hurt by the observations made during the hearing, which they perceived as diminishing the sanctity of Hindu faith symbols. Advocate Kishore, reportedly a strong proponent of temple restoration causes, had also publicly expressed discontent over the court’s stance.

The Broader Debate: Faith, Law, and Judicial Sensitivity

The episode has reignited a larger national conversation on the intersection of religion and judicial reasoning.
Legal experts have emphasized that while courts must operate strictly within constitutional boundaries, sensitivity in cases involving faith and heritage remains essential to maintaining public confidence in the justice system.

Several senior advocates, while condemning Kishore’s conduct, argued that the underlying frustration among certain sections of society reflects a deeper ideological conflict — not between “Sanatan Dharma and the Constitution,” but between personal belief systems and constitutional objectivity.

One senior lawyer commented, “Respect for the judiciary is non-negotiable. But judges too must be cautious not to allow personal ideology to influence judicial remarks, especially in matters touching faith.”

A Call for Restraint — On Both Sides

Observers noted that the incident, while condemnable, also serves as a warning about the growing polarization in public discourse, including within the legal ecosystem.
As one commentator noted, “When emotional issues like religion are discussed in a courtroom, both sides — the Bench and the Bar — must exercise utmost restraint. Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done with fairness and respect.”

Conclusion

While the Bar Council’s disciplinary action underscores its zero-tolerance stance toward indiscipline and courtroom misconduct, the episode leaves behind serious questions about the rising volatility surrounding religious and constitutional debates in India.

Ultimately, as the Supreme Court itself has often observed, faith must coexist with constitutionalism — and neither can be allowed to overpower the other.
The incident, unfortunate as it was, serves as a stark reminder that the sanctity of the courtroom must remain untouched by emotion, ideology, or anger.

#brgavai, #RakeshKishore, #shoeattack, #supremecourt, #PMModi, #lawandorder, #contemptofcourt, #chiefjusticeofindia, #sanatanadharma, #lawyer, #courtsecurity, #indianjudiciary, #khajuraho, #vishnuidol, #lawandorder, #judiciary, #cjibrgavai, #securitybreach, #cji, #dailydozes,