Criminal Contempt Action Sought Against Advocate Rakesh Kishore Who Tried To Hurl Shoe At CJI BR Gavai

A Supreme Court lawyer has written to the Attorney General for India seeking consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai inside the Supreme Court on Monday.

In the letter, Advocate Subhash Chandran KR urged the Attorney General R Venkataramani to grant consent under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, stating that Kishore's conduct of hurling shoe at the dias and shouting slogans against the CJI amounts to gross interference with the administration of justice and undermines the dignity of the Supreme Court.

The lawyer pointed out that, even after the incident, Kishore made contemptuous remarks against the Chief Justice in media interactions, expressing no remorse and instead justifying his actions. The petitioner contends that such behaviour reflects a deliberate attempt to scandalise the court and erode public confidence in the judiciary.

The letter stated that "the most contemptuous act of the Contemnor diminishes the majesty and authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and defeats the Constitution of India."  

The incident occurred inside Courtroom No. 1 of the Supreme Court on Monday during the morning session when Kishore attempted to hurl a shoe at CJI BR Gavai while proceedings were underway. Security personnel immediately intervened and restrained him. He shouted "Sanatan ka apman nahi sahega Hindustan" (Hindustan will not tolerate insults to Sanatan Dharma) while being escorted out.

The Bar Council of India later suspended him, terming his conduct unbecoming.  He was later let off by the Delhi Police as the Supreme Court Registrar General declined to pursue further legal action.

Yesterday, another petition was filed before the AG seeking contempt action against a religious orator named Aniruddhacharya aka Aniruddh Ram Tiwari and YouTuber Ajeet Bharti for allegedly inciting the attack against the CJI through their provocative remarks.