Shoe Thrown at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai: Nation Condemns ‘Attack on Judiciary’

Introduction

In a shocking incident that shook India’s highest court, a 72-year-old lawyer named Rakesh Kishore attempted to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud’s successor, Justice BR Gavai, inside the Supreme Court of India on Monday. The act, allegedly carried out in protest against the CJI’s recent remarks on Sanatan Dharma, has drawn outrage across political, legal, and social circles — being widely condemned as an assault not just on an individual, but on the sanctity of the judiciary and the Constitution itself.

The Incident Inside the Supreme Court

According to eyewitness accounts and reports by The Times of India, NDTV, Hindustan Times, and Bar and Bench, the attack occurred during court proceedings when Kishore, a practicing advocate, suddenly stood up and tried to throw his shoe at the Chief Justice.
Security personnel immediately restrained him before the shoe could reach the bench.

What stood out in this tense moment was CJI BR Gavai’s composed reaction. He reportedly told the courtroom:

“Just ignore it… I am not distracted.”
This calm and dignified response drew comparisons to a similar act of composure by former CJI Justice K. Subba Rao in 1968, who had faced a knife-wielding assailant but continued the proceedings with remarkable poise (The Hindu).

Who Is Rakesh Kishore?

As reported by Hindustan Times and India Today, Rakesh Kishore, 72, is an advocate who has practiced in Delhi for decades. After the attack, Kishore reportedly showed no remorse for his actions. He told reporters during police questioning that he acted under a “divine force” and that “God provoked me to do it,” claiming he was upset over what he perceived as a “disrespect to Sanatan Dharma” by the Chief Justice.

In statements captured by Mathrubhumi English and News18, Kishore said:

“I couldn’t sleep after that judgment. The Almighty asked me how I could rest when Sanatan was insulted.”

He was detained by Delhi Police, questioned for three hours, and released without charges, as confirmed by Mint and Financial Express. However, his license to practice law has been suspended by the Bar Council of India (BCI) pending a disciplinary inquiry (Live Law, Economic Times).

CJI Gavai’s Response: Dignity Over Outrage

Chief Justice BR Gavai, known for his humble and soft-spoken demeanour, refused to press charges.
He reportedly told the security staff and colleagues:

“These things do not affect me.” (Bar and Bench)

This statement has been widely appreciated by legal experts and social commentators as an example of judicial restraint and composure.

Reactions from Across India

Political Leaders Condemn the Attack

Prime Minister Narendra Modi personally called Chief Justice Gavai after the incident, expressing concern and condemning the act as something that has “angered every Indian.”
In a statement released by the PMO and covered by NDTV, BBC, and Deccan Herald, Modi said:

“There is no place for such acts in our society. The attack on the Chief Justice has angered all Indians.”

Union ministers, opposition leaders, and chief ministers from across the country echoed similar sentiments.

• Home Minister Amit Shah condemned the act, calling it “an attack on the dignity of the judiciary.”

• Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge termed it a reflection of “how hate has seeped deep into society.” (The Hindu)

• Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal called it an “assault on the soul of India.” (Moneycontrol)

• Maharashtra CM Eknath Shinde, Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah, and Tamil Nadu CM M.K. Stalin also issued strong statements of condemnation.

Legal Fraternity Reacts

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Bar Council of India (BCI) have both denounced the incident in strong terms.
The SCBA called it a “reprehensible act,” while the BCI announced that Rakesh Kishore’s license was suspended pending disciplinary proceedings. (LawBeat, Live Law)

The SCBA also urged restraint among lawyers and condemned attempts by sections of the media to “sensationalize and distort” the incident for political mileage.

Opposition and Ideological Debates

The attack quickly took a political turn, with parties using it to highlight deeper religious and social divides.
The I.N.D.I.A bloc accused the ruling BJP and RSS of fostering intolerance, saying “RSS hate has now reached the Supreme Court.” (Times Now)
Meanwhile, right-wing supporters online claimed Kishore acted to “defend Sanatan Dharma”, though mainstream Hindu organizations distanced themselves from his actions.

An analysis by The Wire pointed out that the incident exposes “India’s deepest fault line” — the intersection of religious identity and caste politics, since Justice Gavai is India’s first Dalit-Buddhist Chief Justice.

Caste and Religion: The Underlying Tension

Justice BR Gavai has often faced subtle caste-based attacks since his appointment.
As DNA India and OpIndia noted, Kishore’s justification — that he acted to “defend Sanatan Dharma” — has been interpreted differently by political and social groups.
Some progressive commentators called it a “casteist backlash” cloaked in religious sentiment, while others viewed it as religious protest gone too far.

Public Sentiment: Outrage and Reflection

Social media has been flooded with reactions — from condemnation to calls for introspection.
#StandWithCJI and #AttackOnJudiciary trended nationwide, with citizens expressing anger that a temple of justice could become a stage for hate.
Public opinion largely hailed CJI Gavai’s grace under fire, calling his calm reaction “a lesson in leadership.”

Historical Parallels and Judicial Dignity

The Hindu drew a powerful comparison between this incident and a 1968 episode when then-CJI K. Subba Rao remained unfazed during an armed attack.
Observers note that judicial composure in moments of chaos reinforces public trust in the institution.
Legal scholar Fali Nariman once said, “The dignity of the judiciary is measured not by its immunity from attack, but by how it responds to it.”
Justice Gavai’s conduct seemed to embody that principle perfectly.

Broader Implications: Threat to Judicial Independence

This incident raises crucial questions:

• How safe are India’s judges within the courtroom?

• Is increasing polarization threatening judicial independence?

• Can freedom of expression coexist with respect for judicial authority?

Many commentators believe that such acts, even when symbolic, risk undermining the moral authority of the judiciary — the cornerstone of India’s democracy.

Conclusion: Calm Amid Chaos

The shoe attack on Chief Justice BR Gavai may have lasted only seconds, but its implications are far-reaching.
It has exposed not only rising intolerance in the name of faith but also the moral resilience of India’s judiciary.

As Justice Gavai calmly continued his work, he sent a silent yet powerful message:

“The judiciary stands firm — undistracted, undeterred, and undivided.”

India, in turn, now faces a moment of introspection — to decide whether dissent will continue to be expressed through dialogue or descend further into disrespect.