Lawyer Hurls Shoe at India’s Chief Justice Over Hindu God Remark.Lawyer Hurls Shoe at India’s Chief Justice Over Hindu God Remark: What Happened in the Supreme Court?
Lawyer Throws Shoe at CJI BR Gavai: Supreme Court Attack, Vishnu Remark Controversy and Aftermath
A lawyer threw a shoe at CJI BR Gavai during a Supreme Court hearing after objecting to remarks concerning Lord Vishnu. Here is what happened, the controversy behind it, reactions and the wider implications.
Lawyer throws shoe at CJI BR Gavai
CJI BR Gavai shoe incident, Supreme Court shoe attack, Rakesh Kishore, Vishnu idol controversy, Supreme Court security breach, Chief Justice of India
Lawyer Throws Shoe at CJI BR Gavai During Supreme Court Proceedings
A shocking incident unfolded inside India's Supreme Court when advocate Rakesh Kishore threw a shoe towards Chief Justice of India BR Gavai during court proceedings. The incident occurred amid a continuing controversy over remarks attributed to the Chief Justice concerning a petition related to a Lord Vishnu idol at Khajuraho.
The extraordinary episode immediately raised questions about judicial security, courtroom decorum, freedom of expression and the sensitive relationship between religion and India's constitutional institutions.
According to the source material, Kishore's action took place during proceedings on October 6, 2025, in Court No. 1. Security personnel quickly intervened and removed him from the courtroom. The shoe reportedly passed close to the bench, but no physical injury was caused.
Incident Overview
In a shocking breach of decorum that has sent ripples through India's legal and political corridors, 71-year-old advocate Rakesh Kishore hurled his shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai during proceedings in the Supreme Court's Court No. 1 on October 6, 2025.
The act, unfolding at approximately 11:35 AM amid a routine hearing, was no random outburst but a calculated protest rooted in simmering religious fervor. Kishore, a member of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) since 2009, shouted, "India won't tolerate insult to Sanatan Dharma [Hinduism]," as security personnel swiftly apprehended him and escorted him out. The shoe, described as a sports variant, grazed past the bench—brushing against CJI Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan before landing behind them—causing no physical harm but inflicting a profound wound on judicial sanctity. 
Eyewitnesses, including advocates Ravi Shanker Jha and Anas Tanwir, corroborated the sequence to the BBC and other outlets. Jha recounted, "Mr. Kishore threw his shoe and raised his hand to indicate that he had thrown the shoe," while Tanwir praised Gavai's unflappable poise: "The Chief Justice remained calm all the time." Unperturbed, Gavai instructed, "Don't get distracted by all this. These things do not affect me. Continue with the hearing," resuming business as if the temple of justice had not just been desecrated. This incident, unfolding in the marbled halls of the Supreme Court—a symbol of constitutional resilience—exposes fault lines in India's socio-religious fabric. It echoes global precedents of shoe-throwing as protest, from Muntadhar al-Zaidi's 2008 lob at George W. Bush to a 2025 attempt on Kenyan President William Ruto. Yet, in India, where footwear symbolizes utmost disrespect, the act transcends symbolism, igniting debates on faith, judicial independence, and caste undertones. Kishore's suspension by the Bar Council of India (BCI) followed within hours, barring him from practice nationwide—a swift rebuke, though no criminal charges were filed per Gavai's directive. As Delhi Police released Kishore after three hours of questioning—returning his shoes and documents—the nation grappled with outrage. Prime Minister Narendra Modi condemned it as "utterly condemnable," speaking directly to Gavai: "There is no place for such reprehensible acts in our society." Political unity was rare: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi decried it as an "assault on the dignity of our judiciary," while BJP's Amit Shah called it "an attack on democracy." Social media erupted, with #CJIAttack trending alongside #SanatanDharma, amassing over 500,000 mentions by evening—half decrying the assault, half amplifying Kishore's grievance. At its core, this is no isolated tantrum but a flashpoint in the escalating tension between religious orthodoxy and secular adjudication. Kishore's fury stemmed from Gavai's September 16 remarks dismissing a petition to restore a Lord Vishnu idol in Madhya Pradesh's Khajuraho—a UNESCO site scarred by history. "He not only refused to accept the prayer, but made fun of the Lord Vishnu," Kishore told The Print, claiming insomnia since the "insult." In a note recovered by police—"Mera sandesh har Sanatani ke liye hai…Sanatan dharma ka apmaan nahi sahega Hindustan"—he framed his act as a clarion call. 
Gavai, India's 52nd CJI and the first from the Scheduled Castes (SC) in nearly two decades, embodies resilience. Sworn in on August 1, 2025, his tenure—ending May 2026—promised equity amid a judiciary under strain. Yet, this attack lays bare vulnerabilities: a Dalit judge targeted by a upper-caste advocate (Kishore, per unverified reports), invoking Ambedkarite fears of caste backlash against upward mobility. As X user @lakhshya_speaks posted: "A shoe was thrown at Chief Justice Bhushan Gavai India’s Dalit judge... This wasn’t a shoe at a man it was at equality itself." This 3,200-word chronicle dissects the event's anatomy, antecedents, and aftershocks, underscoring a democracy at crossroads. Background: The Vishnu Idol Petition and Spark of Controversy The shoe's trajectory traces back to September 16, 2025, when a bench led by CJI Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan heard a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Rakesh Dalal. The plea demanded the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) reconstruct and reinstall a seven-foot beheaded idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari Temple in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh—a jewel of the Chandela dynasty's 10th-century UNESCO-listed complex. Dalal, a self-proclaimed Vishnu devotee, alleged the idol's mutilation during 12th-century Mughal incursions under Qutb-ud-din Aibak, decrying post-Independence neglect as a violation of Article 25 (freedom of religion). "Restoration isn't archaeology; it's faith's right," his petition argued, citing failed appeals to the Union Home Ministry and ASI since 1947. Khajuraho's 85 surviving temples—once 850—epitomize Hindu-Jain syncretism, their erotic carvings a testament to tantric ethos. The Javari Temple, dedicated to Vishnu's Varaha (boar) incarnation, houses the idol: granite, weathered, headless—a silent relic of iconoclasm that scarred medieval India. Historians like Romila Thapar note such desecrations as political conquests, not theological vendettas, yet for devotees, they evoke unresolved trauma. Dalal's PIL invoked the 2020 Supreme Court verdict in the Gyanvapi Mosque case, urging similar urgency for "reclaiming heritage." Gavai's bench demurred. "This is purely publicity interest litigation," the CJI quipped, dismissing it as beyond judicial purview: "It's an archaeological find; ASI must permit. Go and ask the deity himself to do something. If you are saying you are a strong devotee of Lord Vishnu, then you pray and do some meditation." The bench refused interim relief, transferring the matter to the Madhya Pradesh High Court. These words—sarcastic, folksy—ignited a firestorm. By September 17, #CJIInsultsSanatan trended with 200,000 posts, branding Gavai a "Hinduphobe." OpIndia accused him of "mocking centuries of persecution," contrasting it with the Court's Ram Lalla embrace. Advocates like Vineet Jindal penned open letters: "As a Sanatan follower, I am shocked... Withdraw these hurtful remarks." Impeachment calls surfaced, with X users decrying "secular bias" in a BJP-led era of temple reclamations (e.g., Kashi, Mathura). Gavai clarified on September 18: "Someone told me the comments... have been portrayed on social media in a certain manner. I respect all religions." Solicitor General Tushar Mehta vouched for his ecumenism: "I've known CJI for 10 years; he visits dargahs, gurdwaras." Gavai invoked Nepal's Pashupatinath riots, warning against "misrepresentation." Yet, the sting lingered, festering into Kishore's October 6 outburst. 
This prelude reveals deeper currents: the judiciary's tightrope over heritage disputes amid Hindutva's resurgence. Since 2014, PILs on temples have surged 300%, per National Judicial Data Grid, blending devotion with politics. Gavai's quip, intended to deflate frivolity, amplified perceptions of elite disdain for "bhakti" (devotion), fueling Kishore's vigilante zeal.
Profiles: The Key Figures
Chief Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai: A Pillar of Poise
Born November 24, 1959, in Amravati, Maharashtra, into a Maharashtrian Buddhist family of Dalit roots, BR Gavai's ascent shatters ceilings. A product of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar's legacy—his father a Marathwada University professor—Gavai earned his LLB from Government Law College, Amravati (1981), practicing labor and civil law in Nagpur. Elevated as Bombay High Court judge in 2003, he authored 500+ judgments, championing SC/ST rights (e.g., 2018 Vishaka-like guidelines for workplace harassment).
Appointed Supreme Court judge in May 2019—the third Dalit after KG Balakrishnan and KM Joseph—Gavai's elevation to CJI on August 1, 2025, marked a milestone: the first SC judge in 14 years. His oath, administered by President Droupadi Murmu (another SC icon), symbolized equity. Tenure highlights: upholding Bihar caste census (2024), quashing electoral bonds (partial, 2025), and mediating Manipur violence.
Gavai's jurisprudence blends pragmatism and empathy. In the 2023 EWS quota case, he dissented for "true secularism," arguing affirmative action's necessity. Off-bench, he visits Ambedkar memorials, quoting: "Educate, agitate, organize." Post-attack, his calm evoked Mandela: "These things do not affect me." Yet, critics like @Air_Veteran_ on X mock: "Strongly condemn... How could he go home with one shoe?"—missing the irony of targeting a man who rose despite caste vitriol.
Rakesh Kishore: The Aggrieved Advocate Enrolled with Bar Council of Delhi (D/1647/2009) at 55, Kishore, 71, resides in Mayur Vihar, East Delhi—a modest life of sporadic filings. Born September 10, 1954, he holds SCBA, Shahdara Bar Association cards, and a Supreme Court proximity badge, granting dais access. His docket: two PILs, including environmental pleas, per Indian Express. No prior notoriety, but post-incident, he emerges as a polarizing figure. Questioned by Delhi Police, Kishore cited Gavai's "mockery": "I was hurt... Not inebriated; this was my reaction." To ANI: "No regrets; God provoked me." His note, penned in Hindi, broadcasts defiance. BCI's suspension order: "Conduct inconsistent with... dignity of the court." Released sans charges—Gavai's mercy—Kishore symbolizes fringe vigilantism, where personal piety overrides professional oath. Eyewitnesses and Enablers Advocate Jha, 45, a civil litigator, was arguing when chaos erupted: "CJI told us to continue." Tanwir, 38, lauded security's alacrity. Justice Viswanathan, to whom the shoe veered, received Kishore's apology: "Meant for the Chief." Post-lunch, Gavai huddled with Registrar General and security chief, per sources. Immediate Aftermath: Condemnations and Consequences Kishore's detention lasted three hours in the court complex. Police recovered his affiliations, verifying no weapons or accomplices. No FIR—Gavai's registrar declined charges—sparking X debates: @1Satnamsingh thundered, "Befitting the court's dignity... stringent sanctions." BCI's interim order mandates affidavit compliance within 48 hours, with full inquiry pending. Political chorus: Modi's call to Gavai, "Angered every Indian." INC's statement: "Outcome of sustained campaign to undermine institutions." @INCIndia: "Rule of law—not fear." BJP's Shah: "Attack on democracy." Rahul Gandhi: "Hatred has no place." Media frenzy: NDTV's live feed captured the melee; @ndtv's clip garnered 100K views. Security audit ensued: CISF enhanced scans, per PTI. 
Gavai's post-incident meeting reviewed protocols, but he commented nil publicly—embodying judicial restraint. Broader Implications: Fault Lines Exposed This assault unmasks India's deepening schisms. Religious Sensitivities: In Modi's India, where temple politics fuels elections (e.g., 2024 LS polls), judicial sarcasm risks heresy charges. Gavai's clarification—"True secularism"—notwithstanding, it amplifies "anti-Hindu" tropes, per The Wire: "Impunity... speaks of threats to democracy." Caste Dynamics: Gavai's Dalit identity—converted Buddhist lineage—invites scrutiny. @lakhshya_speaks: "Ambedkar warned: a Dalit with intellect threatens caste society." Post-Mandal, SC representation in judiciary lags (4% vs. 16% population), breeding resentment. This "shoe" echoes 1990s attacks on Dalit judges. Judicial Security: Supreme Court breaches are rare; last major: 2023 advocate scuffle. @choudhary_119: "Insult to the entire Indian judiciary." Reforms loom: AI surveillance, badge revokes. Cultural Symbolism: Shoes as "untouchable" in Hinduism amplify humiliation. Globally, al-Zaidi's act inspired protests; here, it risks normalizing vigilantism. Economically, judicial trust underpins FDI ($81B, 2024); erosion threatens stability. Historical Parallels and Global Echoes India's judicial assaults: 1980s Sikh militants targeted judges post-Indira assassination; 2019 advocate slapped a high court judge. Globally: Bush's shoe dodged (2008), Ruto's (2025). In Pakistan, 2023 Imran Khan supporters hurled at judges. 
These underscore protest's evolution—from ink to insoles—yet India's demands introspection: When faith clashes with forum, who arbitrates? Reactions: A Nation Divided Yet United X's cacophony: @JournoSiddhant: "Attempt foiled." @Spoddar24: "Vakeel ne... Sanatan ka apman." @KumudMishraB: "Attack on our constitution." Unity in condemnation (@OpenNewNews: "Shocking") tempers polarization. Legal voices: SCBA's Rohit Pandey: "Strongly condemn." BCI: "Disciplinary proceedings."
Reclaiming Judicial Sanctity Kishore's shoe, though short, struck deep—a reminder that India's democracy thrives on dialogue, not defiance. Gavai's grace models resilience; the bar's response, resolve. As Modi urged, "No place for reprehensible acts." Let this catalyze safeguards: sensitivity training, caste audits, faith forums. In Ambedkar's words: "Constitution is not a mere lawyer's document; a vehicle of life." May no shoe derail its journey.Chief Justice of India latest newsFrequently Asked Questions
Who threw a shoe at CJI BR Gavai?
According to the supplied article, advocate Rakesh Kishore threw a shoe towards Chief Justice of India BR Gavai during Supreme Court proceedings.
Why did Rakesh Kishore throw the shoe?
The article states that Kishore was angry over remarks attributed to CJI Gavai during an earlier hearing concerning a Lord Vishnu idol at Khajuraho.
Was CJI BR Gavai injured?
According to the supplied source, the shoe passed close to the bench and no physical injury was caused.
What was the Khajuraho Vishnu idol case about?
The petition sought intervention concerning the restoration or reinstallation of a damaged Lord Vishnu idol at the Javari Temple complex in Khajuraho.
What action was taken against the lawyer?
The source material states that the Bar Council of India suspended Kishore from legal practice pending disciplinary proceedings.
What did CJI Gavai do after the incident?
According to the article, CJI Gavai remained composed and instructed those in the courtroom to continue with the hearing.
Did the incident lead to a wider security debate?
Yes. The episode triggered renewed discussion about security arrangements and the protection of judges and court proceedings.
Why is the incident significant?
It highlights the difficult intersection of religious sensitivity, judicial independence, courtroom security and democratic dissent.
Comments
Post a Comment