Key points
- Protest over remarks on Hindu deity
- No charges filed, lawyer suspended
- Justice Gavai remained calm in court
LONDON: An Indian lawyer threw a shoe at Chief Justice BR Gavai during a Supreme court session in Delhi, reportedly upset over remarks the judge made about Hinduism. The incident, seen as a serious breach of courtroom decorum, occurred on Monday.
Three lawyers present confirmed the event, with one stating the shoe “brushed against the Chief Justice and another justice before falling behind them”. The assailant, Rakesh Kishore, shouted “India won’t tolerate insult to Sanatan Dharma [Hinduism]” as security led him away. He has since been suspended from practising law, reports the BBC.
Advocate Ravi Shanker Jha, a witness, told the media, Kishore admitted to throwing the shoe. Despite the disruption, Justice Gavai calmly urged the court to continue proceedings. Lawyer Anas Tanwir also noted the Chief Justice remained composed throughout.
Severe public insult
Authorities have chosen not to file charges against Kishore. Speaking to Indian outlet The Print, he linked his actions to a case dismissed last month by a bench led by Justice Gavai. The petition had sought the reconstruction of a seven-foot idol of the Hindu deity Vishnu in Madhya Pradesh. Rejecting it as “publicity interest litigation”, Gavai remarked, “Go and ask the deity himself to do something” — a comment that drew backlash for allegedly mocking Hindu beliefs.
Justice Gavai later clarified that he respects all religions.
Kishore claimed he had been distressed since the 16 September hearing, saying he had been unable to sleep since then. He added the judge had “mocked Lord Vishnu”.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi condemned the attack, calling it “utterly unacceptable” and said it had angered all Indians. He spoke to Justice Gavai directly, stressing there is no room for such actions in Indian society.
Shoe-throwing is widely regarded as a severe public insult across many cultures.
An association of Supreme Court lawyers condemned Monday’s incident and demanded that the court initiate proceedings against the lawyer involved.
