Attack on Chief Justice of India Sparks Legal Debate

An unprecedented incident shocked India’s Supreme Court. A 71-year-old lawyer, Rakesh Kishore, attempted to throw his shoe at the Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai during court proceedings. The CJI remained calm and dismissed the incident as a forgotten chapter. This event triggered widespread discussion on judicial dignity, legal action, and contempt of court laws.

Incident Overview

On 6 October 2025, during a hearing, lawyer Rakesh Kishore tried to hurl his shoe at CJI B R Gavai. The CJI showed remarkable composure and asked officials to issue only a warning. The lawyer claimed dissatisfaction with the CJI’s remarks on a religious matter. He also shouted slogans defending Sanatan Dharma while exiting the court.

Judicial and Official Responses

The CJI and Justice K Vinod Chandran expressed shock but termed the matter closed. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta condemned the act but praised the CJI’s magnanimity. However, some voices, including Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, criticised the leniency, calling the act an affront to the Supreme Court’s dignity requiring strict action.

Legal Implications and Contempt of Court

The incident falls under contempt of court, criminal assault, intimidation, and possibly terrorist acts. The Contempt of Court Act, 1971, empowers courts to punish contempt committed in their presence swiftly. Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution grant inherent contempt powers to the Supreme Court to uphold judicial authority and protect the rule of law.

Contempt Proceedings and Rules

The Supreme Court’s Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt, 1975, allow immediate punishment for contempt in court. The contemner can be detained or released on bail pending trial. Contempt actions can be initiated suo motu or via petitions by the Attorney General or any person with required consents.

Concerns Over Enforcement

Despite clear laws, police interrogated Kishore briefly and released him without formal charges. His shoe was returned, raising questions about enforcement of judicial protections. Experts warn that ignoring such acts erodes public confidence in the judiciary and sets dangerous precedents.

Significance of Judicial Dignity

Judicial dignity is vital for maintaining the rule of law and public trust. The Supreme Court has held that contempt acts polluting justice and destroying confidence must be punished. Failure to act decisively undermines the authority of courts and weakens constitutional safeguards.

Broader Social and Political Reactions

Political leaders condemned the attack but stopped short of demanding legal action. The incident sparked debates on respect for institutions, freedom of expression, and limits of dissent in a democracy. It also brought into light tensions between religious sentiments and judicial independence.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Critically analyse the role of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, in protecting the judiciary’s authority in India with suitable examples.
2. Explain the constitutional provisions under Articles 129 and 142 that empower the Supreme Court to punish contempt. How do these provisions uphold the rule of law?
3. What are the challenges faced by the Indian judiciary in maintaining public confidence? Comment on the impact of incidents undermining judicial dignity.
4. Underline the balance between freedom of expression and judicial sanctity in a democratic setup. How should courts respond to acts of dissent that border on contempt?

Answer Hints:

1. Critically analyse the role of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, in protecting the judiciary’s authority in India with suitable examples.

1. The Act defines civil and criminal contempt, enabling swift action to protect court dignity.
2. Section 14(1) allows immediate punishment for contempt committed in presence of Supreme/High Courts.
3. It safeguards the administration of justice from interference and maintains public confidence.
4. Example – Courts’ power to punish lawyers or individuals disrupting proceedings or disrespecting judiciary.
5. However, lenient enforcement or ignoring contempt weakens judicial authority and sets bad precedents.
6. The Act balances judicial respect with freedom of speech but requires consistent application to be effective.

2. Explain the constitutional provisions under Articles 129 and 142 that empower the Supreme Court to punish contempt. How do these provisions uphold the rule of law?

1. Article 129 declares Supreme Court as a Court of Record with power to punish for contempt.
2. Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary for doing complete justice, including contempt actions.
3. These provisions give inherent jurisdiction independent of statutes like the Contempt Act.
4. They protect the judiciary’s majesty and authority, ensuring uninterrupted administration of justice.
5. By enforcing contempt powers, the Supreme Court upholds the rule of law and constitutional supremacy.
6. The constitutional backing prevents dilution of contempt powers by ordinary legislation or external interference.

3. What are the challenges faced by the Indian judiciary in maintaining public confidence? Comment on the impact of incidents undermining judicial dignity.

1. Delays in justice and backlog reduce public faith in judicial efficiency.
2. Incidents like attacks on judges or disrespect in court erode the perceived authority of judiciary.
3. Lack of stringent action against contemptuous acts damages institutional credibility.
4. Political interference and media trials sometimes undermine judicial independence.
5. Failure to protect judicial dignity leads to public cynicism and weakens rule of law.
6. Maintaining transparency, promptness, and strict enforcement of contempt laws are vital to restore trust.

4. Underline the balance between freedom of expression and judicial sanctity in a democratic setup. How should courts respond to acts of dissent that border on contempt?

1. Freedom of expression is fundamental but not absolute; it cannot undermine judiciary’s authority.
2. Judicial sanctity ensures respect for rule of law and impartial justice delivery.
3. Dissent must be expressed respectfully without obstructing court functioning or defaming judiciary.
4. Courts should differentiate between fair criticism and contemptuous acts that disrupt justice.
5. Contempt proceedings must be fair, timely, and proportionate to preserve both rights and dignity.
6. Strict but balanced action deters misuse while upholding democratic freedoms and judicial respect.