On October 6, 2025, during court proceedings in Delhi’s No. 1 High Court, 71-year-old lawyer Rakesh Kishore, a temporary member of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) since 2011, removed a sneakers and attempted to throw it at Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai.
The sneaker reportedly grazed CJI Gavai and another judge before falling behind the bench, causing no physical harm. As security personnel restrained him and escorted him away, Kishore shouted, “India will not tolerate any insult to Sanatan Dharma [Hinduism].”
The action lasted only a few seconds, and CJI Gavai remained calm, instructing the court to proceed with arguments and officials to warn Kishore instead of immediately escalating the situation.
The provocation arose after Chief Justice Gavai’s dismissal on September 16, 2025, of a petition seeking the reconstruction of a decapitated idol of Lord Vishnu at the Khajuraho temple in Madhya Pradesh.
The Gavai court called it a “publicity-driven litigation” and remarked, “Go and ask the deity itself to do something,” which Kishore and his critics interpreted as a mockery of Hindu beliefs. Kishore also cited Gavai’s recent speech in Mauritius, in which he emphasized India’s “rule of law” over the “bulldozer state,” as further aggravating religious sensitivities.
Rakesh Kishore’s Statements and Mindset
Following the incident, Kishore showed no remorse in interviews, stating that he was “guided by a divine force” and that “the Almighty asked me every night how I could rest after such an insult.” He insisted he was “ready to go to jail,” denied political affiliations, and described himself as “mentally healthy,” attributing his sleepless nights to the CJI’s remarks. Kishore, a doctor in medical entomology from Banaras Hindu University and a brief consultant for the World Health Organization before turning to law, was portrayed by SCBA officials as a marginal figure who rarely appeared in cases and who never qualified for permanent membership.
However, his family strongly condemned the act, expressing deep anger, shame, and confusion, and Kishore admitted that they could not understand his behavior.
Consequences for Rakesh Kishore
Immediate Arrest and Release: Security forces detained Kishore on the spot and handed him over to the Delhi Police for questioning. He was released without charge that same day, as the Supreme Court Registrar refused to take legal action, and authorities determined that a formal complaint would not be filed.
Professional Suspension: The Bar Council of India (BCI) issued an immediate interim suspension order, finding the act “incompatible with the dignity of the court” and in violation of the rules of professional conduct under the Advocates Act of 1961. Kishore is barred from appearing, pleading, or practicing before any court, tribunal, or authority in India.
The BCI required his status to be updated on all court records, invalidated his login credentials, and required an affidavit of compliance within 48 hours. He will be served with a show cause notice within 15 days, which could lead to permanent disbarment or additional sanctions.
As of 7 October 2025, no broader criminal proceedings (e.g., under sections of the Indian Penal Code for assault or contempt) had been initiated, although disciplinary measures under the Bar Regulations continue.
Broader Impact
The incident has reverberated across India’s legal, political, and social spheres, underscoring vulnerabilities in judicial security and the intersection of religion and law:
On the Judiciary: It exposed lapses in courtroom protocols, prompting calls for enhanced screening of advocates. CJI Gavai downplayed it, stating “these things do not affect me,” but the event has fueled debates on judicial insensitivity to religious sentiments, with critics arguing remarks like Gavai’s erode public trust in the courts. Legal fraternity members, including SCBA joint secretary Meenesh Dubey, labeled it a “publicity stunt” rather than genuine faith-driven protest, highlighting internal divisions.
Political and Public Reaction: Prime Minister Narendra Modi condemned it as “utterly condemnable,” reflecting bipartisan outrage that “angers every Indian.” On X (formerly Twitter), reactions are polarized: many decry the shoe-throwing as a grave insult to institutional dignity, with posts like “Throwing a shoe is unacceptable in court” gaining traction. Others sympathize with Hindu grievances, questioning if Gavai’s “dismissive comments” provoked escalation and drawing parallels to historical protests like Bhagat Singh’s assembly bombing for “making the deaf hear.” Semantic searches reveal a mix of condemnation (e.g., #CJIAttacked trending with calls for stricter bar ethics) and fringe support framing it as “judicial rebellion against activism.”
Societal Echoes: As a potent symbol of disrespect in Indian culture, the act has amplified tensions over “Sanatan Dharma” in public discourse, especially amid ongoing temple restoration disputes. It risks normalizing vigilante responses to perceived slights, though widespread media coverage emphasizes unity against such breaches.
This episode concludes as a stark reminder of the sanctity of the judiciary amid India’s pluralistic tensions. Kishore’s suspension served as a swift professional deterrent, but not a penal reckoning, reflecting a measured institutional response to prevent escalation.
While his defense of “divine force” and lack of remorse portray a delusional fringe actor, the incident corroborates criticisms that judicial rhetoric must be wary of faith to prevent such outbursts.
Other broader lessons include strengthening judicial security, encouraging dialogue on religious PILs, and reaffirming that dissent should be present in arguments, not attacks.
As one X user noted, “It takes an explosion for the deaf to hear,” but in a democracy, the gavel, not the shoe, must prevail. There are no long-term consequences for Chief Justice Gavai, but it could influence the future composition of the courts in sensitive cases.
