Supreme Court Declines Contempt Action Against Lawyer in Chief Justice Shoe-Throwing Incident

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to initiate contempt proceedings against Advocate Rakesh Kishore for his attempt to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai. The Court, however, acknowledged the necessity of establishing guidelines for handling such incidents.

Justices Surya Kant and Joymala Bagchi expressed uncertainty whether, under current contempt law, any judge other than the one directly affected could initiate contempt proceedings.

While refusing to issue notice to Kishore, Justice Kant questioned Supreme Court Bar Association president Vikas Singh, asking, "Why give him so much importance?"

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta similarly advised against giving Kishore additional media attention by issuing a notice.

"These are mere saleable objects for news channels. Till the time it's reaping revenue they will play it up. When redundant they will take up something else," observed Justice Surya Kant regarding the media coverage of such incidents.

The bench decided to keep the matter pending specifically regarding guidelines and social media posts about such incidents.

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) had requested criminal contempt proceedings against Advocate Kishore following his October 6 attempt to throw a shoe at CJI Gavai over comments in the Vishnu idol case.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, who also serves as SCBA President, emphasized that the issue transcended Chief Justice Gavai as an individual and concerned respect for the judicial institution.

"When the incident happened, he was detained briefly. We initially thought the matter had concluded, but then media interviews followed where he stated he would repeat his actions. This behavior is being glorified. The court possesses sufficient powers to prevent such occurrences," Singh argued.

Justice Surya Kant responded, "This undoubtedly constitutes serious and grave criminal contempt. The manner of his actions is unpardonable, and subsequent events have aggravated the situation. However, since the Honorable CJI has pardoned him, we are not inclined to initiate contempt proceedings."

Singh insisted that while the Chief Justice may have forgiven Kishore personally, the institution could not ignore the incident as it had become the subject of jokes.

"If Rakesh Kishore refuses to express remorse, he should be jailed immediately," Singh added.

Justice Kant questioned the wisdom of giving the individual such prominence, stating, "We appreciate the request for guidelines to address such incidents, but we remain unconvinced about pursuing contempt."

Justice Joymala Bagchi noted that while throwing a shoe and shouting slogans are clearly contemptuous acts, the contempt of court act leaves such matters to the discretion of the affected judge.

"The CJI in his magnanimity chose to ignore the incident. Is it within the authority of another bench or even the Attorney General to consent to contempt proceedings?" Justice Bagchi questioned.

Taking serious note of how the incident was being "glorified," the Court stated it would ensure the proceedings remained pending so guidelines could be issued regarding the reporting of such issues.

Beyond seeking contempt action against Kishore, the SCBA requested a John-Doe order against social media posts celebrating the attack on Chief Justice Gavai.

Previously, the Justice Kant-led bench had expressed reluctance to pursue contempt proceedings, concerned it might revive the issue unnecessarily.

The bench noted that since Chief Justice Gavai himself had decided against pursuing action against Kishore, it would be prudent to let the matter resolve naturally.