The Supreme Court on Monday refused to issue notice to Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who recently attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai during court proceedings.
A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, while hearing pleas related to the incident, said that though the act amounted to “grave criminal contempt,” the Court would not take any immediate coercive steps against the lawyer. Instead, it indicated that it would consider issuing preventive guidelines to ensure such incidents are not repeated.
“We are not closing anything. Suggest preventive measures. We’ll take it up after a week,” the Bench said, while dismissing the writ petitions filed in connection with the incident as “not maintainable.”
“All the issues have already been comprehensively raised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA),” the Bench observed.
During the hearing, SCBA President and Senior Advocate Vikas Singh strongly pressed for action, expressing concern over the perceived glorification of Kishore’s conduct.
“When the incident happened, he was detained briefly and then allowed to go. But later he justified it, saying ‘God asked me to do it’ and even said he would do it again. This glorification cannot be allowed. It’s bringing disrespect to the institution,” Singh told the Court.
Justice Surya Kant agreed that the act constituted “a severe and grave criminal contempt,” but noted that since the CJI himself had chosen to pardon the advocate, the Court should adopt a similarly magnanimous approach.
“The act is indeed grave. But once the CJI himself has pardoned, why should we give further importance to such a person?” Justice Kant remarked.
Singh, however, persisted, stating that the issue was not personal but institutional. “This has become a joke in society. Tomorrow someone else might repeat it, believing the Court won’t act,” he warned.
Justice Bagchi referred to the Contempt of Courts Act, explaining that contempt committed in the face of the Court falls under Section 14, which leaves action to the discretion of the judge concerned.
“In this case, the CJI, in his glorious magnanimity, chose to ignore it. Once he decided to let it go, can the Attorney General still give consent under Section 15?” Justice Bagchi questioned.
The Bench then suggested that instead of taking a “reactive or antagonistic approach,” the Court could consider framing preventive guidelines to deter similar acts in the future.
Justice Kant concurred, stating, “The issue of glorification exists, and we will certainly consider guidelines. But giving undue importance to one individual would only amplify his actions. We must show the same composure that the CJI displayed.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also supported the Court’s cautious stance. “Issuing a notice might only extend his shelf life on social media. He might portray himself as a victim,” Mehta submitted.
The incident occurred on October 6, when Advocate Rakesh Kishore attempted to hurl a shoe toward the dais of CJI Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran during a hearing. The outburst provoked widespread outrage in the legal community. The Bar Council of India subsequently suspended Kishore’s licence to practise.
Reports suggested that Kishore’s actions stemmed from his dissatisfaction with certain remarks made by CJI Gavai in unrelated cases — including one involving the restoration of a beheaded idol of Lord Vishnu in Khajuraho, where the CJI had jokingly remarked that the litigant “ask the deity” for a solution. Kishore had also publicly criticised the CJI’s later comments made in Mauritius regarding bulldozer demolitions in India.
When the SCBA first mentioned the contempt issue, SG Mehta informed the Court that Attorney General R Venkataramani had already granted consent for initiating contempt proceedings under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act. However, the Bench at that time had declined to list the matter immediately, observing that further discussion would only keep the controversy alive.
“Once we take this up, it will again be spoken about for weeks,” Justice Kant had remarked, noting that the Court preferred to let the matter “fade away.”
Concluding Monday’s hearing, the Bench assured the SCBA that the Court shared its concerns but would act with restraint.
“We understand and respect your concern,” Justice Kant said, adding humorously that they would review the issue after a week: “Let’s see what happens in a week — there may be more saleable items to discuss by then.”
Justice Bagchi added, “After the vacation, perhaps some other saleable items will come up.”
The matter will be taken up next week, when the Court is expected to deliberate on preventive steps to preserve decorum within court premises.
Read More: EPF Withdrawal Rules Simplified
 Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai during court proceedings.){kind=link}