Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeOther LawsAG Grants Consent for Criminal Contempt Against Advocate Over Shoe-Throwing Incident in...

AG Grants Consent for Criminal Contempt Against Advocate Over Shoe-Throwing Incident in Supreme Court

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani has granted consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against advocate Rakesh Kishore, following his alleged misconduct by throwing shoe at CJI during proceedings before the Supreme Court of India. 

The consent was issued under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and addressed to Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Vikas Singh.

In a strongly worded letter, the Attorney General observed that the conduct of Mr. Kishore amounted to criminal contempt of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, falling squarely within the ambit of Section 2(c) of the Act. Venkataramani wrote that Kishore’s acts and utterances were “scandalous” and calculated to demean the majesty and authority of the Court.

“Such behaviour strikes at the very foundation of the justice delivery system and has the clear tendency to lower public confidence in the institution of the judiciary, and more so of the highest Court,” the Attorney General noted.

The incident reportedly involved an attempt by Mr. Kishore to throw a shoe during court proceedings, an act which the Attorney General described as a grave affront to the dignity of the Court and the rule of law. The AG stated unequivocally that “no person can have any reason whatsoever to scandalise the Court,” emphasizing that throwing or attempting to throw any object at judges or shouting in court constitutes unacceptable and contemptuous conduct.

Rejecting any justification offered by Mr. Kishore, Venkataramani remarked that the reasons advanced by him “can never be in justification of such scandalous conduct.” He further noted that the advocate had shown no remorse or repentance, as evidenced by his subsequent utterances.

“From the materials placed on record, I find Mr. Rakesh Kishore has not shown any repentance as regards the conduct in question,” the letter stated.

Accordingly, the Attorney General formally granted consent for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against Mr. Kishore before the Supreme Court.

The incident has stirred significant debate within the legal fraternity, with SCBA President Vikas Singh earlier asserting that such behaviour cannot go “unnoticed” and that the matter concerns institutional integrity. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had also expressed concurrence, underscoring that the prestige of the Supreme Court must be protected.

The Supreme Court is expected to take up the matter for hearing shortly. If found guilty, Mr. Kishore could face punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, which includes imprisonment up to six months or a fine up to ₹2,000, or both.

Amit Sharma
Amit Sharma
Amit Sharma is the Content Editor at JurisHour. He has been writing about the Indian legal market. He has covered tax & company litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and Various Tribunals. Amit graduated from MLSU Law College with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. from MLSU, Udaipur, Rajasthan. An Advocate in Taxation, and practised in Tribunals as well as Rajasthan High Court and pursued Masters in Constitutional Law. He started out small with little resources but a big plan to take tax legal education to the remotest locations across India and eventually to the world. His vision is to make tax related legal developments accessible to the masses.

Latest articles

Management, Technical Services Rendered From China Not Taxable as FTS Under India-China DTAA: ITAT

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that payments...

CGST Corruption Case: Allahabad HC Grants Bail to Advocate After 9 Months in Custody

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has granted bail to 70-year-old advocate Naresh Kumar...

CBDT Removes Arrest Provision for Tax Recovery

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has amended the Income-tax Rules, 2026, bringing...

CBDT Revises Valuer and Income-tax Practitioner Forms, Extends Key Deadlines

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has notified the Income-tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules,...

More like this

Management, Technical Services Rendered From China Not Taxable as FTS Under India-China DTAA: ITAT

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that payments...

CGST Corruption Case: Allahabad HC Grants Bail to Advocate After 9 Months in Custody

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has granted bail to 70-year-old advocate Naresh Kumar...

CBDT Removes Arrest Provision for Tax Recovery

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has amended the Income-tax Rules, 2026, bringing...