The Supreme Court on Thursday (16 October 2025) declined to act immediately on a request to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against advocate Rakesh Kishore, who allegedly threw a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) B. R. Gavai earlier this month. Despite the Attorney General’s consent for contempt action, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said the court preferred to “let the incident die a natural death” rather than fuel further public outrage and social media debate.
The matter came up when Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President and Senior Advocate Vikas Singh informed the bench that Attorney General R. Venkataramani had granted approval to initiate contempt proceedings. “I have taken the consent of the Attorney General and I am seeking a listing tomorrow,” Singh said.
Supporting the move, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court, “Learned Attorney General has given consent. I would also join my learned friend and request your Lordships to take up the contempt. It is constitutional integrity which is under question.”
CJI Gavai’s Calm Response
The incident took place on 6 October 2025 in Court Hall 1 of the Supreme Court, when Kishore allegedly hurled a shoe at the CJI while proceedings were underway. CJI Gavai remained calm, asked the lawyers present to continue with the day’s cases, and refrained from reacting to the disruption. Kishore was reportedly upset over remarks made by the CJI during a hearing on a plea seeking restoration of a Vishnu idol in Khajuraho.
Following the incident, the SCBA removed Kishore from its rolls, while the Bar Council of India suspended his licence to practice pending further action.
Bench Cites CJI’s Magnanimity
On Thursday, Vikas Singh said that discussions about the incident were still circulating on social media, adding that Kishore had claimed to feel remorse. The Solicitor General said that “some people are glorifying the incident,” and urged the court to intervene to protect the institution’s dignity.
However, Justice Surya Kant observed, “Hon’ble CJI has been extremely magnanimous… That shows the institution is not affected by these kinds of incidents.”
Mehta agreed that the CJI’s conduct reflected “a gesture of majesty” but reiterated his concern that “people using social media to justify the act was concerning. It is a matter of institutional integrity.”
Vikas Singh also suggested the court consider issuing a John Doe order, an injunction against unidentified individuals, to curb the glorification of the act online.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, cautioned that such a step could worsen the situation. “A John Doe order will be the next cavalcade of events. It is because of our behaviour in court that we survive and we get the confidence from the people. The Hon’ble Chief Justice exhibited that spirit when he just washed it aside as an act of an irresponsible citizen. Should we now rake up an issue which, for our sake, is complete and finished?” he said.
‘A Waste of Judicial Time’
Justice Bagchi added that there were several important matters before the court and questioned whether reviving the issue would be a waste of judicial time. Singh clarified that he only sought a restraint on the glorification of the act.
Justice Kant remarked, “What my brother is pointing out — and you will also appreciate — is that the moment you (raise it), the media story will continue.”
Justice Bagchi added humorously, “Unfortunately, we have become money-spinning ventures…”
Agreeing, Solicitor General Mehta said, “Social media platforms work on algorithms. People are addicted to them. And these platforms monetise that addiction. We feel we are using social media, but in fact, we are the products.”
Justice Kant responded, “We are the product and the consumer both.”
Justice Bagchi elaborated on the influence of algorithms, saying, “The algorithms are so programmed that things which pertain to the baser instincts of individuals like hate, lust, anger etc… what happens is when this sort of a comment is made and repeated, you will find the number of hits are more. And the algorithm in the social media platform is to promote it so that as soon as you access that platform it will be up on your screen. In these situations, we assure you that your mentioning today is going to be monetised… Please don’t operate to their monetisation. Allow it to have a natural death.”
‘The Bar Has Always Stood for the Institution’
Singh replied, “I understand. We waited for so long. It is only because of the angst of the Bar. It involves the majesty of the institution. If the institution does not have the respect…”
Justice Kant reassured him, saying, “The Bar has always stood for the institution because you are the bridge between the consumer of justice and the court. We understand your predicament, your sentiments.”
Singh requested the matter be listed on Friday, saying, “By then we will also introspect, and Your Lordships will also take a thought about it and may modulate the order accordingly.”
Justice Kant asked whether the issue should be listed the next day or after the Supreme Court’s Deepawali recess next week. Singh replied, “Let it be tomorrow. This is continuing. If something has to be done, it has to be done immediately.”
However, the bench decided to defer consideration until after the recess. “Let us see what will happen in a week. Are they still left with some saleable item!” Justice Kant remarked in a lighter tone.
Justice Bagchi added, “Maybe something new will come for the algorithm.”
To which Solicitor General Mehta concluded, “Yes, it has a shelf life of 24–48 hours, and then something else takes over.”
(Source: Indian Express)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
