Bar Council of India Suspends Advocate Rakesh Kishore After Attempted Shoe Attack on CJI B.R. Gavai

The Bar Council of India has suspended advocate Rakesh Kishore after he allegedly attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai during Supreme Court proceedings on 6 October 2025. The incident arose amid controversy over remarks related to a Vishnu idol restoration case.

Incident Overview

On 6 October 2025, proceedings in Court No. 1 of the Supreme Court of India were momentarily disrupted when Advocate Rakesh Kishore, aged 71, attempted to throw his sports shoe toward Chief Justice of India Dr. B. R. Gavai. Kishore, enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi (Enrolment No. D/1647/2009), was reportedly shouting “Sanatan ka apmaan nahi sahenge” (“We will not tolerate insult to Sanatan Dharma”).

Court security officers quickly intervened, restraining him before the shoe could make contact. The Chief Justice maintained composure and instructed that the proceedings continue, remarking, “Just ignore it.”

Following the court’s directive, Delhi Police detained the advocate briefly for questioning and released him as no formal complaint was filed by the court registry.

BCI’s Immediate Disciplinary Action

The Bar Council of India (BCI) took suo motu action, issuing an interim suspension order the same day. The order bars Rakesh Kishore from appearing, acting, pleading, or practicing in any court, tribunal, or authority across India until further notice.

The BCI cited the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Bar Council of India Rules on Professional Conduct and Etiquette, noting that his behaviour was prima facie inconsistent with the dignity and decorum of the court.

Key directives of the suspension order:

• The Bar Council of Delhi must update his professional status and inform all Bar associations, including the Supreme Court Bar Association.

• His identity card, proximity pass, and entry permissions stand suspended.

• He must file an affidavit within 48 hours, affirming that he will not appear in any matter while suspended.

• A show-cause notice gives him 15 days to explain why his suspension should not be extended or made permanent.

Background: The Vishnu Idol Controversy

According to initial reports, the act was linked to ongoing public debate over comments made by CJI Gavai during a hearing related to the restoration of a seven-foot beheaded idol of Lord Vishnu at Khajuraho (Madhya Pradesh).

During that hearing, the CJI reportedly remarked:

“If you are a true devotee of Lord Vishnu, pray to Him and seek His intervention.”

The remark drew criticism on social media for allegedly hurting religious sentiments.

When detained, Kishore was found with a handwritten note saying:

“Mera sandesh har Sanatani ke liye hai – Sanatan Dharma ka apmaan nahi sahega Hindustan.”

He also carried valid membership cards from the Supreme Court Bar Association, Shahdara Bar Association, and the Bar Council of Delhi.

Clarifications

• The Chief Justice did not pardon the advocate; he merely chose not to escalate the issue.

• The release by Delhi Police was due to the court registry’s decision not to file a formal complaint.

• The incident involved a shoe and no physical harm was caused.

• The Khajuraho idol restoration matter remains under judicial consideration.

Conclusion

The incident underscores the importance of professional ethics and courtroom decorum within India’s legal fraternity. While the Chief Justice maintained calm dignity, the Bar Council’s swift action reflects its commitment to upholding judicial respect and disciplinary integrity within the profession.

Questions of Law and Professional Ethics

1. Whether the conduct of an advocate inside a courtroom amounts to professional misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961.

• Relevant provisions:
• Section 35, Advocates Act 1961 – empowers State Bar Councils to take disciplinary action for professional misconduct.
• BCI Rules on Professional Conduct and Etiquette, Part VI, Chapter II – obliges advocates to maintain dignity of court and refrain from scandalous or disrespectful behaviour.
• Key legal issue: Does an act motivated by personal or religious sentiment (throwing a shoe at a judge) fall squarely within “professional misconduct”?

2. Whether the act constitutes contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

• Relevant law:
• Section 2(c)(i) & (ii) – “Criminal contempt” includes acts which scandalize or lower the authority of any court or obstruct judicial proceedings.
• Case law:
• Re: Arundhati Roy (2002) 3 SCC 343 – personal attack on judges amounts to criminal contempt.
• In Re: Vinay Chandrakant Naik (2002) 2 SCC 134 – abusive behaviour towards a judge in open court held to be contemptuous.
• Issue: Should the Supreme Court have initiated suo motu contempt proceedings despite the CJI’s refusal to press charges?

3. Extent of Judicial Clemency vs. Institutional Accountability.

• Question: Can personal leniency by a judge (e.g., choosing to “ignore” the attack) override the institutional obligation to preserve court dignity?
• Discussion: Article 129 of the Constitution vests the Supreme Court with inherent power to punish for contempt. Judicial restraint may show magnanimity, but it also raises questions about deterrence and precedent.

Constitutional and Criminal Law Questions

4. Freedom of Expression vs. Contempt and Decorum.

• Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech; however, Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions for contempt of court.
• Issue: Whether an expression rooted in “religious sentiment” can justify a contemptuous or violent act inside a court of law.

5. Whether the incident attracts penal liability under the Indian Penal Code.

• Potential provisions:
• Section 352 IPC – assault or use of criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation.
• Section 504 IPC – intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace.
• Section 506 IPC – criminal intimidation (if threat implied).
• Issue: Was non-prosecution by police legally proper once the aggrieved (CJI) declined to lodge a complaint?

6. Whether religious belief can mitigate disciplinary or criminal responsibility.

• Principle: Religious motivation does not constitute a legal defence to criminal or professional liability unless protected conduct falls within constitutional exceptions.
• Case analogy: Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) 3 SCC 615 (freedom of religion) – but limited to peaceful expression, not acts of aggression.

Institutional and Regulatory Questions

7. Authority of the Bar Council of India to suspend an advocate suo motu pending inquiry.

• Legal basis: Section 36-B read with Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
• Issue: Whether interim suspension without hearing violates audi alteram partem (principles of natural justice), or whether the urgency justified immediate action.

8. Impact on the image and independence of the judiciary.

• Policy question: How should courts balance tolerance for dissent with zero tolerance for disruptive behaviour?
• Precedent: In Re: Prashant Bhushan (2020) 5 SCC 670 – criticism permissible, but actions undermining judiciary’s authority attract sanction.