New Delhi, October 27, 2025: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to initiate contempt proceedings against the lawyer who hurled a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai earlier this month, citing that the CJI himself had chosen not to pursue action.
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi observed that while shouting slogans or throwing objects in court clearly amounts to contempt, the decision to proceed lies entirely with the judge concerned. “Issuing a contempt notice will only give undue importance to the lawyer and prolong the shelf life of the incident. It should be allowed to die a natural death,” the Bench remarked.
The court was hearing a plea filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) seeking contempt action against 71-year-old advocate Rakesh Kishore, who threw a shoe towards the CJI on October 6 during proceedings. The court, however, declined to take the matter further, noting the CJI’s decision to forgive the lawyer.
The Bench also indicated that it may consider framing guidelines to prevent similar disruptions in the future and asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to gather details of past incidents of misconduct, including shoe-throwing episodes in other courts.
Earlier, on October 16, the Supreme Court had underscored that freedom of speech and expression cannot come at the cost of others’ dignity and integrity, warning against the growing threat of “unregulated” social media. The court had described such acts as “money-spinning ventures” designed to gain attention.
The October 6 incident had caused a major security scare inside the courtroom. Despite the chaos, CJI Gavai remained calm and directed court staff and security personnel to “just ignore it,” allowing the lawyer to leave with only a warning. The Bar Council of India later suspended Kishore’s license with immediate effect.
The episode drew widespread condemnation from legal bodies and political leaders alike. Prime Minister Narendra Modi reportedly spoke with the CJI following the incident, expressing concern over the breach of courtroom decorum and security.
