The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has filed a petition asking for criminal contempt proceedings against advocate Rakesh Kishore, following his attempt to throw a shoe at the B. R. Gavai, Chief Justice of India, during court proceedings on October 6. The matter is scheduled for hearing on Monday, October 27, before a bench of Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi. During the mention of the case on October 16, SCBA President Vikas Singh notified the bench that the K.K. Venugopal (Attorney General of India) has given his consent to initiate the contempt proceedings, and the Tushar Mehta (Solicitor General) has supported the move.
Case Title & Parties
- Case: SCBA v. Rakesh Kishore, Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 1/2025.
- Petitioner: Supreme Court Bar Association.
- Respondent: Advocate Rakesh Kishore.
- Bench: Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, Justices of the Supreme Court of India.
Facts
- On October 6, 2025, during the morning session in the Supreme Court, Rakesh Kishore allegedly attempted to throw a shoe (or at least remove his shoe to hurl it) at the B. R. Gavai, Chief Justice of India, while court proceedings were underway.
- The incident occurred in Courtroom No. 1; the advocate reportedly shouted slogans such as: “Sanatan ka apmaan nahi sahega Hindustan.”
- Security personnel intervened swiftly and restrained him, and the CJI calmly resumed proceedings.
- Following the incident:
- The Bar Council of India suspended him from practice.
- The SCBA condemned the act and contemplated disciplinary action.
- A letter was sent to the Attorney General for India seeking consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Legal Proceedings & Issues
- Consent for Criminal Contempt: The Attorney General of India gave consent for the initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against Rakesh Kishore.
- SCBA’s Request: SCBA, represented by its President (Senior Advocate Vikas Singh), sought a hearing and interim actions including possibly issuance of a “John Doe” order to restrain social-media posts glorifying the act.
- Supreme Court’s Reaction:
- The Bench expressed reluctance to take up the contempt proceedings immediately, questioning whether this episode should be reopened, since the CJI himself had chosen not to pursue further action.
- The Court noted concern about judicial time being consumed by this matter, when more pressing litigations await hearing.
Direction / Interim Order
- The matter is listed for hearing on 27 October 2025.
- The Court has not made a final order to initiate contempt at this stage; it has raised questions about the propriety of doing so now.
- The request to restrain social-media posts and commentary around the incident remains under consideration.
Significance & Key Take-aways
- The case raises core issues of courtroom decorum, respect for the judiciary, and contempt of court.
- It illustrates the tension between disciplinary/regulatory action by the Bar and criminal contempt proceedings by the Court.
- The Bench’s reluctance highlights a challenge: such incidents, if aggressively litigated, may generate more publicity and divert judicial time, possibly defeating institutional interests.
- It also raises the interplay between social-media commentary and judicial dignity: the Court’s concern about posts glorifying the incident underscores modern challenges in controlling digital narratives around court proceedings.
