The Supreme Court on Monday indicated that it is not inclined to initiate contempt proceedings against lawyer Rakesh Kishore, who threw a shoe toward Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai during court proceedings on October 6. The court reasoned that pursuing contempt charges would afford “undue importance” to the incident and the individual, which the Chief Justice himself chose to avoid.
CJI’s Response and Court’s Rationale
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi referred directly to the CJI’s reaction at the time of the incident, noting his decision to “just ignore” the episode and not press any charges against the lawyer.
Justice Kant observed that individuals who resort to such acts “have no stake in the system.” He stated that the Court would view the matter with the “same magnanimity that the CJI has shown.”
The bench further commented that initiating a contempt notice would only:
- Give “undue importance” to the lawyer.
- “Increase the shelf life of the incident.”
The judges concluded that the matter should be allowed to “die its own natural death,” despite acknowledging that “Shouting slogans in court and hurling shoes are clear cases of contempt of court.”
Background and Future Guidelines
The bench was hearing a plea filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) seeking contempt action against the 71-year-old advocate. Following the disruption, the Bar Council of India had already suspended Kishore’s licence with immediate effect.
The shoe-throwing episode, which saw CJI Gavai remain unfazed and continue with the proceedings while directing security personnel not to take punitive action, drew widespread condemnation. Prime Minister Narendra Modi also reportedly spoke to the CJI after the incident.
The Supreme Court, however, indicated it would consider laying down guidelines to prevent such incidents in the future and asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to gather information on similar episodes reported in other courts.
Previously, on October 16, the Supreme Court had issued a general caution on the dangers of “unregulated” social media, warning that the right to speech cannot be exercised at the expense of others’ dignity and integrity, and labeling such disruptive acts as potential “money-spinning ventures.”