Lawyer Tries to Hurl Shoe at CJI Gavai in SC Courtroom

CJI BR Gavai shoe attack Supreme Court Drama: Lawyer Tries to Throw Shoe at CJI BR Gavai Over ‘Sanatan Dharma’ Remark

Security Stops Attack in Courtroom; Chief Justice Remains Calm and Says, “These Things Do Not Affect Me”

Incident Linked to Earlier Controversy Over CJI’s Comments on Lord Vishnu Idol Case in Khajuraho

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi: October 06, 2025:

The Supreme Court of India witnessed a shocking and unprecedented disruption on October 6, 2025, when a man dressed as a lawyer attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai during open court proceedings. The incident, which took place in Court No. 1, was quickly brought under control by security personnel, but it has raised serious concerns about security inside the apex court and the growing trend of ideological protests spilling into judicial spaces.

The accused, identified as 71-year-old Rakesh Kishore, was immediately detained. As he was being escorted out, he shouted slogans such as “Sanatan ka apmaan nahi sahenge” (We will not tolerate the insult of Sanatan Dharma).

The Incident in Court

According to eyewitnesses and media reports, the incident occurred during the mentioning of cases before a bench headed by CJI Gavai.

The man, dressed in a lawyer’s robe, approached the dais and attempted to remove his shoe with the intent of hurling it at the Chief Justice.
Security personnel stationed inside the courtroom acted swiftly, restraining him before the shoe could reach the bench.
As he was being removed, the man shouted slogans about protecting Sanatan Dharma.

Despite the commotion, CJI Gavai remained composed. He urged lawyers present not to get distracted, remarking:

“Don’t get distracted by all this. We are not distracted. These things do not affect me.”

The proceedings then continued without further disruption.

Link to Earlier Controversy

The attempted attack is believed to be linked to remarks made by CJI Gavai in September 2025, during a hearing on a petition seeking the restoration of a 7-foot beheaded idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari temple in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh.

At that time, the CJI had reportedly told the petitioner:

“Go and ask the deity itself to do something now. You say you are a staunch devotee of Lord Vishnu. So go and pray now. It’s an archaeological site and ASI need to give permission.”

The remark triggered widespread criticism on social media, with some accusing the Chief Justice of hurting religious sentiments. Days later, CJI Gavai clarified in open court that his comments had been misrepresented, stressing:

“I respect all religions. This happened on social media.”

Nevertheless, the controversy appears to have fuelled anger among certain groups, culminating in Monday’s dramatic incident.

Security Concerns in the Supreme Court

The incident has raised questions about security protocols inside the Supreme Court.

The accused reportedly had a proximity card, an access pass issued to lawyers and clerks, which allowed him entry into the courtroom.
The fact that he could approach the dais before being stopped has led to calls for stricter checks.
The Supreme Court’s security unit has launched an internal inquiry into how the breach occurred.

Political and Social Reactions

The attempted attack has sparked a wave of reactions:

Legal Community: Many lawyers condemned the act, saying it undermines the dignity of the court.
Public Debate: On social media, reactions were divided. Some criticized the accused for disrespecting the judiciary, while others linked the act to growing tensions over religious identity.
Government Response: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing in court, remarked that social media often exaggerates controversies, saying:

“There is Newton’s law which says every action has equal reaction, but now every action has disproportionate social media reaction, milord.”

Historical Context: Protests in Courtrooms

While rare, India has witnessed occasional disruptions inside courtrooms:

In the past, litigants have shouted slogans or staged sit-ins during hearings.
However, an attempt to physically attack the Chief Justice of India is virtually unheard of in recent history.
The incident has therefore been described as a serious breach of decorum and security.

Broader Implications

The attempted shoe attack raises several important issues:

Judicial Dignity: The judiciary is a pillar of democracy, and attacks on judges undermine public confidence in the justice system.
Security Protocols: The incident highlights the need for stricter screening of individuals entering courtrooms, even if they hold valid access passes.
Freedom of Expression vs. Contempt: While citizens have the right to protest, disrupting court proceedings or attempting violence crosses into contempt of court and criminal conduct.
Religious Sensitivities: The case underscores how remarks made in judicial contexts can be misinterpreted or politicized, leading to heightened tensions.

The Calm Response of the CJI

Observers have praised CJI Gavai’s dignified response. By refusing to be distracted and continuing with proceedings, he sent a message of resilience. His calm demeanour was seen as an assertion that the judiciary will not be intimidated by ideological or physical attacks.

What Happens Next

The accused, identified as Rakesh Kishore, is being interrogated by police.
Legal proceedings are expected to be initiated against him for attempted assault, disruption of court proceedings, and contempt of court.
The Supreme Court may also consider revising its security protocols to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Conclusion

The attempted shoe attack on Chief Justice BR Gavai is a stark reminder of the challenges facing India’s judiciary in an era of heightened ideological polarization. While the incident was swiftly contained, it has sparked a national debate on security, respect for judicial institutions, and the dangers of mixing religious sentiment with courtroom proceedings.

By remaining calm and composed, CJI Gavai demonstrated the resilience expected of the country’s highest judicial authority. But the incident also serves as a warning that India’s courts must remain vigilant against both physical disruptions and ideological pressures.