“Very shocked”: CJI B. R. Gavai Breaks Silence on Shoe Attack, Calls It a “Forgotten Chapter”

The Incident: What Happened on October 6

On Monday, October 6, 2025, a 71-year-old advocate, Rakesh Kishore, stormed into Courtroom No. 1 of the Supreme Court and attempted to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) B. R. Gavai. The startling episode occurred during routine court proceedings. While the assault failed to reach the bench, the act sent a chill through the courtroom.

Eyewitnesses report that as the advocate was being restrained by security, he shouted slogans, notably “Sanatan ka apman nahi sahenge” (“We will not tolerate an insult to Sanatan Dharma”).

Chief Justice Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, the other judge on the same bench, were visibly shaken by the incident. The CJI later described the moment as “very shocking.”

The Silence and the Statement

For days after the incident, the Supreme Court refrained from making any official statement. Then, during a hearing related to environmental clearance petitions, the CJI chose to address the matter briefly. He said:

“My learned brother (Justice K. Vinod Chandran) and I were very shocked with what happened on Monday; for us it is a forgotten chapter.”

He made no additional remarks, and the court proceeded to business. His choice of words — calling the incident “forgotten” — suggests an intent to draw a boundary between judicial proceedings and acts of disruption.

Reactions from the Bench, Bar & Beyond

While the CJI opted for brevity, the response from other dignitaries and bodies was far more emphatic:

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, sitting with the CJI, remarked sternly:
“He is the CJI — it’s not a matter of joke … it is an affront to the institution.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta condemned the attempt as “unpardonable,” while praising the Chief Justice’s composure and restraint.

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) swiftly terminated Kishore’s membership for “grave misconduct.”

The Bar Council of India (BCI) suspended Kishore’s license to practice law, citing prima facie breach of ethical standards and court dignity.

Political and legal leaders across the spectrum joined in condemning the act — decrying it as an assault on the sanctity of the judiciary and constitutional order itself.

Context: What Possibly Triggered the Outburst

Some analysts view the incident as a backlash against a remark previously made by the CJI during a hearing about the restoration of a Lord Vishnu idol in Madhya Pradesh’s Khajuraho temple complex. During that hearing, Justice Gavai had referred to the petition as one of “publicity interest litigation” and remarked:

“Go and ask the deity himself to do something. … If you are a strong devotee of Lord Vishnu, then pray and meditate.”

Following widespread backlash on social media and in religious circles, the CJI clarified that the remarks were misrepresented and asserted his respect for all faiths.

That earlier controversy perhaps created the emotional tinder that fueled the dramatic courtroom episode.

The Stakes: What This Means for the Judiciary

The attempted assault on the Chief Justice is more than a sensational media moment. It raises deeper questions:

Courtroom Security & Authority
How secure is the highest court when an advocate — someone trusted with court access — can bring in a weapon (even if a shoe)? The integrity of courtroom safety protocols is under scrutiny.

Respect for Judicial Office
Attacks on judges aren’t merely personal; they challenge the mystique, authority, and public trust in the institution of the judiciary.

Balance Between Free Expression & Decorum
Lawyers have the freedom to express dissent — but must do so within bounds of professional decorum. Rakesh Kishore’s dramatic act violated that boundary in a glaring way.

Chilling Effect vs. Resilience
Will judges and courts feel pressured to self-censor or retreat into silence lest they provoke reactions? Or will they adopt firmness while preserving open justice?

Public Perception & Legitimacy
The judiciary is not immune to societal tensions — religious, political, ideological. Incidents like this test how courts address external pressures without compromising constitutional principles.

Why the CJI’s Response Matters

Chief Justices in India often wield their responses — or silences — as powerful signals.

By calling it a “forgotten chapter,” CJI Gavai seems to convey that the judiciary will not be derailed by disruption.

His calm in court and refusal to overemphasize the incident may be intended to preserve decorum and dignity of the office.

But some critics argue that silence might downplay the seriousness of the act, risking weaker deterrents against future breaches.