New Delhi, Oct 27 (UNI) The Supreme Court today declined to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who allegedly attempted to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai during a hearing in the Vishnu Idol case on October 6.
However, the Court expressed serious concern over the growing trend of glorifying such acts on social media. A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) seeking contempt action against the advocate and a John Doe order to curb online glorification of the incident.
Appearing for the SCBA, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh stated that the association had initially refrained from pursuing the matter out of respect for the Chief Justice’s decision to pardon the lawyer. However, he pointed out that Kishore’s subsequent media statements claiming divine instruction to repeat the act had “made a mockery of the institution.”
“We can’t let this incident go,” Singh told the Bench. Justice Surya Kant acknowledged the gravity of the incident but emphasised that the Chief Justice’s own pardon carried weight. “There’s absolutely no doubt that the very first act is serious and grave. The only question is, once the Chief Justice of India has chosen to pardon him, can we still pursue contempt?” he observed.
Responding to this, Singh contended that the CJI’s pardon was given in a personal capacity and not on behalf of the judiciary as an institution. “This is about the dignity of the court itself,” he said. Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that throwing a shoe or shouting slogans in court amounted to contempt in the face of the court under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, but observed that the power to act in such situations lies with the presiding judge.
“The CJI, in his magnanimity, chose to ignore the act,” Justice Bagchi remarked, while questioning whether another Bench or even the Attorney General could independently initiate contempt under Section 15. Although the Bench made it clear that it would not pursue contempt proceedings, it underlined the need to evolve guidelines to discourage the glorification of such acts and enhance courtroom security.
“We are with you on the issue of glorification and security. Preventive measures are needed,” Justice Kant said. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, present during the hearing, supported the Bar’s concerns but urged restraint. “His shelf life on social media is only a few days. Issuing notice might extend it; he may start playing the victim,” he warned.
Justice Kant concurred, observing, “Channels know showing him generates revenue. Giving undue attention only fuels glorification. Such persons have no place in the system.” Senior Advocate Singh also informed the Court that the Bar had tightened its membership scrutiny after the incident. “Had he been jailed that day, this glorification might not have happened,” he said.
Justice Kant, however, advised caution, noting that instant punitive reactions could trigger further irresponsible behaviour. “The judiciary must respond with restraint and wisdom,” he said. The Bench sought preventive suggestions from both the Bar and the government to prevent similar incidents and said it would revisit the issue after a week.
“The judiciary is thick-skinned,” Justice Kant remarked, “but we will ensure such acts are not repeated.” The Court also dismissed a separate writ petition filed on the same issue, declaring it not maintainable. With this, the Bench effectively closed the contempt chapter while keeping open the larger issue of safeguarding judicial dignity in the digital era.
On October 16, SCBA President Vikas Singh had mentioned the matter before Justice Kant’s Bench, informing that the Attorney General for India had granted consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the advocate. Solicitor General Mehta had also supported the Bar’s plea at that stage.
