Supreme Court of India declared its decision not to initiate contempt proceedings against 71-year-old advocate Rakesh Kishore, who, on October 6, 2025, hurled a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai during court proceedings. A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi recognized that such actions, including shouting slogans and throwing objects in court, unequivocally constitute contempt of court under the law. However, aligning with CJI Gavai’s directive to refrain from action, the bench determined that pursuing contempt proceedings would unnecessarily amplify the incident’s significance and grant undue prominence to the advocate involved. The court emphasized that issuing a contempt notice would only serve to prolong the matter’s visibility, stating that the incident should be allowed to fade from public attention naturally.

The incident, which unfolded in a crowded courtroom, represented a significant breach of security and judicial decorum, prompting immediate action from the Bar Council of India, which suspended Kishore’s license to practice law with immediate effect. The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) filed a plea urging contempt action, arguing that such behavior undermines the judiciary’s authority and dignity. The bench, however, declined to act on the plea, respecting the CJI’s composed response during the incident, wherein he instructed court officials and security personnel to disregard the act and release Kishore with a warning. This display of restraint by the CJI has been widely noted as a testament to judicial composure in the face of provocation.

To address the potential for future disruptions, the Supreme Court directed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to compile a detailed report on similar incidents, such as shoe-throwing, in courts across India. This initiative reflects the court’s commitment to formulating guidelines to safeguard judicial proceedings while maintaining institutional integrity. The decision to explore preventive measures underscores the judiciary’s recognition of the need to balance deterrence with the preservation of its dignified approach to handling such provocations. The court’s measured response aims to prevent the escalation of such incidents into broader public spectacles while ensuring the judiciary remains a bastion of order and respect.

Also Read: Supreme Court Allows Centre to Reconsider Rs 9,450 Crore AGR Demand on Vodafone

The incident has elicited widespread condemnation from legal bodies, political leaders, and civil society, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi personally contacting CJI Gavai to express solidarity. On October 16, 2025, the Supreme Court had addressed the broader implications of such acts, highlighting concerns over the misuse of unregulated social media platforms. The court cautioned that actions like hurling a shoe at a sitting CJI could be exploited for publicity, describing them as potential “money-spinning ventures” that erode the dignity and integrity of individuals and institutions. This observation reflects the judiciary’s growing apprehension about the intersection of disruptive behavior and amplified public platforms in an era of heightened media influence.

The episode has sparked a critical examination of courtroom conduct, security protocols, and the delicate balance between freedom of expression and respect for judicial authority. Legal scholars have emphasized that while the right to free speech is enshrined in the Constitution, it must not infringe upon the sanctity of judicial proceedings or the dignity of the courts. The Supreme Court’s decision to forgo contempt action, while pragmatic, has prompted discussions about the appropriate mechanisms to deter future violations without escalating their public impact. As the court proceeds with its plan to establish guidelines to prevent similar incidents, the legal community awaits further directives on how these measures will uphold judicial integrity in an environment increasingly shaped by public scrutiny and media dynamics.

Also Read: Karur Stampede Investigation Shifted to CBI Amid Supreme Court Oversight