A day after an advocate allegedly attempted to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice B.R. Gavai inside the Supreme Court, the matter was mentioned before a bench led by Justice Surya Kant on Wednesday, with the Attorney General of India granting consent for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against the accused advocate, Rakesh Kishore.
The incident, which has sparked widespread discussion and outrage across social media, drew strong reactions from senior members of the bar and the government.
Appearing before the bench of Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Senior Advocate Vikas Singh said:
“This shoe-throwing incident cannot go unnoticed like this. This person has no remorse. I have sought consent from the Attorney General, and the criminal contempt be listed tomorrow. Social media has gone berserk.”
Supporting the call for action, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated,
“Consent has been given. It is the institutional integrity at stake.”
Bench Urges Restraint, Citing Institutional Composure
Justice Surya Kant, while acknowledging the gravity of the incident, stressed the importance of restraint and composure:
“We are all for free speech. The problem is how to regulate. Hon’ble CJI has been magnanimous — that shows the institution is not affected by these kinds of incidents.”
Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Aniruddha Bagchi echoed similar sentiments, emphasizing that the judiciary’s response should reflect dignity and maturity.
Justice Bagchi remarked,
“It is for us and our behavior in courts that we survive. It’s that spirit which Hon’ble CJI exhibited. He washed it aside. You have to consider whether breaking up an issue which for us is complete will help or only give opportunity to these chirping elements to go on.”
The bench underlined that the incident had already been internally dealt with and that reviving the issue might amplify it unnecessarily.
“The moment you take any action now, it will become Episode No. 2,” observed Justice Kant.
“Such a John Doe order will lead to a cavalcade of comments,” added Justice Bagchi.
Debate on Social Media Amplification
The court also discussed the role of social media in sensationalizing such incidents.
Solicitor General Mehta pointed out,
“Social media works on algorithms… and this makes us addicted. We are in fact the products and not that we are using it.”
Justice Bagchi elaborated, “Algorithms are so designed that they work on hate, caste, anger, etc. — so it gets more hits, likes. Your mentioning today will only be monetised. We do not have to cooperate in this monetisation and let it die a natural death.”
SCBA’s Plea for Contempt Action and Restraint Orders
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh persisted, urging that the “glorification of the shoe-throwing incident must stop” and requested the court to list the criminal contempt matter at the earliest.
“The angst of the Bar is because of the attack on the institution,” he said.
However, the bench appeared reluctant to take immediate judicial action, noting that such proceedings could inadvertently fuel more public attention.
Justice Surya Kant remarked, “Once we take this up, it will again be spoken about for weeks.”
Justice Bagchi added wryly, “After the vacation, maybe some other saleable items will come up.”
Bench Defers Listing, Emphasizes Composure
Concluding the hearing, Justice Surya Kant advised patience:
“Let us see what happens in a week and read more saleable items.”
The hearing ended without an order to list the contempt case immediately, with the bench signaling that the judiciary’s best response to provocation may be dignified silence — allowing the matter to fade rather than fuel a social media spectacle.
Background
On Tuesday, Advocate Rakesh Kishore allegedly attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai while proceedings were underway. The act drew instant condemnation from members of the Bar, though the CJI chose to ignore the provocation, continuing with court business.
The incident has since gone viral, sparking debate about decorum in courtrooms and the spread of contemptuous behavior on social platforms.
