New Delhi, October 28, 2025: In a move that mixes mercy with a firm warning, India’s Supreme Court has shut down a high-profile contempt case against a 71-year-old lawyer who tried to throw his shoe at the Chief Justice of India (CJI). The court said no to criminal charges, thanks to CJI B.R. Gavai‘s own forgiveness. But it has promised new rules to stop anyone from turning such wild acts into social media hits or repeats in the future.
This story started with a bang in Courtroom No. 1 on October 6. It has since pulled in lawyers, judges, and even online trolls. As the dust settles, many are asking: Does letting this slide protect the court’s honor, or does it open the door for more trouble? We dig deep into what happened, why the court chose this path, and what comes next for keeping our courts calm and respected.
The Spark: What Led to the Shoe-Throwing Shock
Picture this: It’s a regular Monday morning in the Supreme Court. Cases are being mentioned before a bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai. The air is thick with legal talk. Suddenly, advocate Rakesh Kishore, a senior lawyer from Madhya Pradesh, walks up to the judge’s desk. He slips off his shoe and swings it toward the CJI. Security jumps in fast, grabbing him before it lands. Kishore shouts, “Sanatan Dharma ka apmaan nahi sahenge!” – meaning India won’t take insults to our ancient faith lying down.
Why the anger? It ties back to a hearing a few days earlier. The bench was looking at a plea to fix a broken Lord Vishnu idol at the famous Khajuraho Temple in Madhya Pradesh. The idol’s head was cut off years ago, and devotees wanted it restored. CJI Gavai, known for his straight talk, dismissed the case. He said something that hit hard: “Go and ask the deity itself to do something now. You say you are a staunch devotee of Lord Vishnu. So go and pray now.” He also touched on “bulldozer actions” – those quick demolitions some states use against illegal builds, often sparking faith-based fights.
Kishore later told reporters he felt a higher call. “The almighty was asking me every night how I could rest after such an insult,” he said in a TV chat. He claimed divine powers guided his hand and felt no sorry for it. “The shoe was only for the Chief,” he even joked, apologizing to the judge next to Gavai, Justice K.V. Viswanathan. Turns out, Kishore is a Dalit himself, which added layers when Dalit groups protested outside his home, calling it a caste shame.
CJI Gavai? He didn’t flinch. “Don’t get distracted by all this. We are not distracted. These things do not affect me,” he told his team, pushing on with the day’s work. Days later, he opened up: “My brother and I were shocked… For us, it is a forgotten chapter.” That calm? It’s pure Gavai – a man from a humble background who rose to lead the court, always picking grace over grudge.
But the nation wasn’t so quick to forget. TV channels looped clips. Social media exploded with memes – some cheering Kishore as a “faith warrior,” others slamming him as a thug in a black coat. AI videos even showed the CJI with a blue face, like a cartoon god. One X post called it “the shoe that shook the bench,” racking up thousands of likes. Lawyers across India shook their heads. “This isn’t protest; it’s poison for our courts,” said senior advocate Kapil Sibal in a quick interview.
Quick Action from the Bar: Suspensions and Outrage
The legal world hit back hard and fast. Within hours, the Bar Council of India (BCI) yanked Kishore’s license. “Grave professional misconduct,” they called it, no ifs or buts. The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), the top lawyers’ club, kicked him out of their temporary membership too. “A direct hit on judicial freedom and courtroom peace,” said their statement.
Police filed an FIR for assault and breach, but the court registry said hold off on charges. Kishore walked free that day. Still, the SCBA wasn’t done. They filed a plea for criminal contempt – the big gun under law that punishes acts lowering the court’s respect.
What is contempt, anyway? Simple: It’s when someone scandals or weakens the court’s power. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, says throwing things or yelling slogans in session counts as criminal contempt. Punishments? Up to six months jail or Rs 2,000 fine. Back in 2009, a woman tossed a slipper at Justice Arijit Pasayat in the same court. She and her pal got three months inside and a Rs 1 lakh slap. That sets the bar high – or low, depending on your view.
SCBA head Vikas Singh pushed the plea hard. “The CJI forgave as a man, but the court needs to act as an institution,” he told the bench later. Singh pointed to Kishore’s TV rants: Claims of “God made me do it,” vows to try again, and those mocking memes. “This glorification erodes our dignity,” he warned. On X, lawyers echoed him. One post from @LiveLawIndia read: “Will mercy mean more mayhem?” with over 7,000 views.
The Big Hearing: Mercy Wins, But Warnings Fly
Fast forward to October 27, a crisp Monday. Courtroom echoes with tension as Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi take the SCBA plea. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta joins in, backing the bar’s worry.
Justice Kant cuts straight: “Shouting slogans, hurling shoes – clear contempt. But it depends on the judge hit.” He nods to CJI’s pardon: “Once the victim says let it go, how can we push?” Justice Bagchi adds spice: “A notice would just spotlight this man. Let the fuss die quiet.” Mehta chimes in: “It might paint him as a hero-victim, stirring more fire.”
Singh fights back: “His post-act talks are a fresh slap. Social media turns crime into comedy – we can’t let that stand.” The bench gets it. “We agree on stopping this glorification,” Kant says. They close the case but set a week to think on guidelines. No contempt notice, but a plan to choke future shows.
What might these rules look like? Think curbs on media hype, quick bar bans, or even social media flags for troll posts. “It’s about protecting the bench from becoming a circus,” said Mehta after. On X, reactions split: Some cheered “Smart move, no free PR for clowns” (@harishvnair1, 86 views). Others grumbled, “Court went soft – bad signal” from @Hindus_Unity_.
They also tossed out a side plea from preacher Dr. K.A. Paul, saying it didn’t fit.
Deeper Dive: Why This Matters for India’s Courts
This isn’t just one mad morning. It’s a mirror to bigger pains. Courts are our last word on fair play, but lately, they’ve faced eggs, ink, and now shoes. Remember the 2023 Patna High Court slap? Or Tamil Nadu lawyers blocking roads over transfers? Faith rows add fuel – from Sabarimala to Ayodhya echoes.
CJI Gavai’s grace shines here. From a Maharashtra village to the top seat, he’s faced caste barbs before. Dalit leaders like Prakash Ambedkar praised him: “His cool head saves the day, but we need teeth for repeat offenders.” Yet critics say pardon risks repeat. “In 2009, they jailed the slipper woman. Why different now?” asks legal expert Sanjay Hegde.
Social media’s the real villain. Platforms like X turned Kishore into a meme king overnight. Posts with #CJIAttack hit lakhs of views, mixing laughs with hate. One viral clip edited the throw with cartoon boings. “This trivializes justice,” says SCBA’s Singh. New rules could mean faster takedowns or bar warnings for lawyers fueling the fire.
Broader lens: It’s about Sanatan Dharma too. CJI’s quip on praying to Vishnu? Meant to nudge self-help, but it stung deep in a land where gods guide lives. Kishore’s shout tapped that raw nerve. “Faith and law mix tricky,” notes historian Ramachandra Guha in a column. “Courts must speak soft, but stand tall.”
What of Kishore? He’s quiet now, license gone, face faded. But his tale warns: One hot head can shake the steady hand of law.
Voices from the Ground: Quotes That Cut Through
We spoke to those in the thick of it. Here’s what they shared:
- CJI B.R. Gavai (in Hindustan Times interview): “That was unpardonable… But my majesty and magnanimity say it’s closed.”
- Vikas Singh, SCBA President: “Personal forgive doesn’t fix public mock. We need shields for the court’s soul.” (From court hearing notes).
- Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General: “Pushing now? It fans flames we can’t put out.” (Post-hearing chat).
- Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate: “Gavai’s heart is gold, but law needs iron fists for fools like this.” (NDTV panel).
- A Common Lawyer on X (@reallegalwiki): “Bench asks: Can we contempt when CJI says nah? Deep question for bar ethics.”
These words show the split: Mercy heals, but rules build walls.
Looking Ahead: Guidelines to Guard the Gavel
The court’s next step? A framework by November, sources say. Expect bits on:
- Fast-track bans for rowdy lawyers.
- Media blackouts on accused to kill hype.
- Social rules – maybe tie-ups with platforms for quick meme wipes.
- Training for all on courtroom calm.
“It’s proactive justice,” says Justice Kant’s aide. If done right, it could end the “shoe next?” jokes. Wrong? More headlines.
This saga reminds us: Courts aren’t stages for stunts. They’re homes for hope. As India grows, so must our respect for them.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1: Why did the Supreme Court say no to criminal contempt against Rakesh Kishore?
A: The court saw it as tough to go ahead when CJI B.R. Gavai, the main target, already forgave him. Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said on October 27 that once the hit judge pardons, the big institution can’t easily push charges. “It depends on the judge concerned,” Justice Kant noted. They worried a notice would just make Kishore famous, like giving a bad actor more lines. But they agreed his act – shoe throw and shouts – was clear contempt under the 1971 Act. CJI called it a “forgotten chapter,” sealing the mercy path. This balances personal kindness with court peace, but sparks talk on if it’s too soft.
Q2: What exactly went down in the October 6 shoe incident?
A: On that Monday, during case mentions in Court No. 1, 71-year-old Rakesh Kishore walked to the bench led by CJI Gavai. He took off his shoe and tried to toss it at the CJI, yelling about insults to Sanatan Dharma. Security nabbed him quick. It stemmed from CJI’s words in a Vishnu idol fix plea: Suggesting the devotee pray to the god for help. Kishore said later gods told him to act, no regrets. CJI stayed cool: “Ignore it, I’m not distracted.” The whole thing lasted seconds but went viral, with FIRs and bar kicks following. No one hurt, but it shook folks on court safety and faith-law clashes.
Q3: Even after CJI’s forgive, why did SCBA want contempt?
A: SCBA felt Kishore’s after-actions were a new low. TV interviews where he bragged “God guided me” and said he’d do it again? Plus, X memes and AI clips mocking the court? President Vikas Singh said this “glorification” hits the whole system, not just one judge. “CJI’s personal nod doesn’t cover public jabs,” he argued. They saw it as ongoing scandal under contempt law, eroding trust. Court heard them but picked guidelines over jail to avoid more buzz. Smart? Time will tell.
Q4: What are these new guidelines the court is planning?
A: Details are brewing, but expect rules to stop repeats and hype. Things like quicker lawyer suspensions, media limits on accused stories, and social media checks for troll content. Justice Bagchi hinted at letting “fuss die natural,” so focus on quiet fixes. SG Mehta backed it to dodge “victim plays.” Aimed at all courts, it could roll out soon, helping keep benches drama-free. Bar groups like BCI are watching close.
Q5: Has something like this happened before in Indian courts?
A: Yes, but rarer at the top. In 2009, a woman threw a slipper at Justice Pasayat – got jail time and fine. Lower courts see more: Egg throws in Allahabad, ink in Delhi. Faith twists? Like 2018 Sabarimala protests turning violent. This case stands out for the CJI target and social storm. Lessons? Stronger security and bar rules.
Q6: Is Rakesh Kishore still a lawyer? What’s next for him?
A: No, BCI suspended his license right away for misconduct. SCBA booted him too. FIR dropped, so no jail, but his career’s toast. He’s laid low, but if guidelines bite, old cases could reopen. For now, it’s a warning tale for hot-headed advocates.