New Delhi: A Supreme Court lawyer has written to Attorney General R. Venkatramani, requesting his consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against advocate Rakesh Kishore, who allegedly attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R. Gavai inside the courtroom.
In his letter dated Wednesday, advocate K.R. Subhash Chandran described the act as one that “diminishes the majesty and authority of the Supreme Court and defeats the Constitution of India.” He argued that the lawyer’s continued lack of remorse makes out a clear case of scandalizing and lowering the authority of the apex court.
The incident took place on October 6, when Kishore, present in the CJI’s courtroom, tried to remove his shoe to hurl it toward the Chief Justice. He was immediately restrained by security personnel and escorted out. Kishore claimed his anger was directed at remarks made by the CJI while dismissing a plea seeking restoration of Lord Vishnu’s idol at Khajuraho.
Although Kishore was detained, the Supreme Court registry chose not to press charges. However, the Bar Council of India (BCI) swiftly suspended his license, citing violations of its Rules on Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette, which require advocates to maintain dignity, respect toward the court, and refrain from improper acts that could influence judicial proceedings.
Chandran, in his communication, stated that the act constituted a clear interference with the administration of justice and was aimed at scandalizing the Supreme Court. He further pointed out that Kishore had continued to make derogatory remarks against the CJI and the court through media and social media platforms, where he even claimed to feel “no remorse” for his conduct, alleging that a “divine voice” provoked him.
Under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975, consent from the Attorney General is mandatory to initiate contempt proceedings. Chandran urged the AG to grant permission, emphasizing that the act was “the most contemptuous” and warranted strict legal action to preserve the sanctity of the judiciary.
