Supreme Court Considers Limits of Contempt Law
The two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, deliberated on the possibility of initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against advocate Rakesh Kishore, who attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, considering the Chief Justice of India’s condonation of the act. This deliberation took place during the hearing of a plea submitted by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) seeking criminal contempt action against Kishore and requested a John Doe order to stop social-media posts that glorify the incident.
Background: Shoe-Throwing at the CJI
On October 6, during proceedings in Court No. 1 of the Supreme Court, advocate Rakesh Kishore attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice Gavai. Lawyers present reported that he shouted slogans such as “Sanatan Dharam ka apmaan nahi sahega Hindustan.” Security intervened and removed him swiftly.
Argument Over Personal Pardon vs Institutional Authority
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the SCBA contented that CJI’s pardon was in his individual capacity and could not bind the institution. Justice Surya Kant observed that the attack “amounted to serious and grave criminal contempt.” Yet he questioned whether action could be pursued when the presiding judge, CJI Gavai, had effectively overlooked the matter.
Upon deliberation of sections 14 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the court concluded that, in light of the Chief Justice of India’s decision not to proceed with contempt charges under section 14, the matter may not be revived under section 15, even with consent from the Attorney General.
Concerns about the Glorification
Singh pointed out that Kishore, in his interviews following the incident, bragged about his actions and expressed intentions to repeat them, which led to the glorification of the incident in the media. He argued that this constituted a fresh offence. While the court acknowledged that the glorification of the act raises serious concerns and emphasised the need for preventive guidelines, it opined that giving further attention to Kishore could inadvertently glorify him even more. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta cautioned that issuance of notice might extend the shelf-life of the incident on social media and actually magnify its impact.
No Immediate Contempt, Focus on Guidelines
The bench ultimately decided not to proceed with criminal contempt for the time being. It indicated its inclination to frame guidelines to deal with the issue of glorification of such acts. The matter was adjourned for a week
Case Title: SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION v. RAKESH KISHORE CONMT.PET.(Crl.) No. 1/2025
