Supreme Court Declines Contempt Proceedings Against Lawyer Who Threw Shoe at Chief Justice Gavai

The Chief Justice of India remained composed throughout and after the incident during court proceedings. (File)

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to initiate contempt proceedings against a lawyer who attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai but indicated it would consider establishing guidelines to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, noting that CJI Gavai himself had chosen not to take action against 71-year-old Rakesh Kishore, stated that while shouting slogans and hurling objects in court clearly constitute contempt, the decision to proceed ultimately rests with the concerned judge under existing law.

"Initiating contempt proceedings would only give unwarranted attention to the lawyer who threw the shoe at the CJI and would extend the public life of the incident," the bench remarked, suggesting the matter should naturally fade from public attention.

The court was addressing a petition from the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) seeking contempt action against advocate Kishore for his attempt to hurl footwear toward the CJI on October 6 during official court proceedings.

Justice Kant observed that while Kishore's behavior "constituted serious and grave criminal contempt that cannot be pardoned," he questioned whether the court should exercise its jurisdiction when the CJI has already shown clemency regarding the matter.

"Once the CJI has pardoned, should we pursue this further? Although, we are inclined to examine other aspects like John Doe orders and preventive measures," Justice Kant stated.

A John Doe order refers to a legal directive that permits action against unidentified parties.

SCBA's representative, senior advocate Vikas Singh, argued that the CJI's pardon was offered in his "personal capacity" and could not bind the institution and its decisions.

"The CJI's decision was made in his individual capacity, and we as integral members of this institution cannot allow this incident to pass unchallenged. People are making jokes and glorifying what happened. Please issue notice to him, and if he shows no remorse, send him directly to jail," Singh submitted.

He added that the CJI's decision to release Kishore has emboldened him, suggesting that immediate incarceration on the day of the incident could have prevented its glorification.

The court indicated it would consider establishing guidelines to prevent such occurrences in the future.

Justice Bagchi, referring to the Contempt of Court Act, questioned whether contempt proceedings could be initiated by another bench when the judge who experienced the act had chosen not to pursue it.

"Throwing objects or shouting slogans in court are inherently contemptuous acts under section 14 (of the Contempt of Court Act). In such instances, the decision to initiate contempt rests with the concerned judge. The CJI, in his gracious magnanimity, chose to overlook it. Is it now within another bench's authority or even the Attorney General's to consent to contempt proceedings? Please reference section 15," Justice Bagchi noted.

Singh mentioned that while the CJI initially declined to press charges, Kishore subsequently gave media interviews boasting about his actions and threatening to repeat them.

Justice Kant responded that since the CJI had chosen not to proceed under section 14, it may not be appropriate for any other authority to revive the issue.

"That concludes contempt on the face of the court," he remarked, adding that immediate punitive measures on the day "might have incited irresponsible individuals" and that the Court should now focus on preventive strategies.

Singh contended that Kishore's subsequent conduct, including public statements and glorification of the act, constituted a new offense.

Justice Kant acknowledged that glorification of the act raised "serious concerns" and said the Court would work with the SCBA to formulate preventive guidelines.

"With your input, we would like to establish guidelines. However, giving excessive attention to one individual will only glorify him further," he observed.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, while supporting the SCBA's concerns, cautioned that any action could reignite the controversy.

"His social media relevance will last only a few more days. He isn't significant, but any action against him would elevate his status. Issuing notice might extend his public attention. He could begin portraying himself as a victim," Mehta advised.

Singh argued that inaction might lead Kishore to claim "the Supreme Court lacked courage to act." Justice Kant responded that with his over two-decade judicial career, and Justice Bagchi's 15-16 years of experience, they had developed thick skin and were unconcerned by such comments.

The bench adjourned the matter until the following Monday and requested Mehta to compile details of similar incidents in various courts.

On October 16, the top court stated that freedom of speech cannot be exercised at the expense of others' dignity and integrity, warning about the dangers of "unregulated" social media, and noting that incidents like the recent one in the Supreme Court are merely "money-spinning ventures."

On October 6, Kishore attempted to throw a shoe toward the CJI in his courtroom, prompting the Bar Council of India to immediately suspend his license.

The CJI, who remained unperturbed during and after this unprecedented incident, instructed court officials and security personnel to "simply ignore" it and to release the offending lawyer with a warning.

The incident drew widespread condemnation, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi speaking directly to the CJI after condemning the act.

(This article has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)