Supreme Court to Hear SCBA’s Contempt Plea Over Alleged Shoe-Throwing Incident

A Startling Breach Inside the Courtroom

The Supreme Court of India is set to hear, on October 27, a contempt petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) against advocate Rakesh Kishore, who allegedly attempted to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai during open court proceedings earlier this month. The incident, which reportedly occurred during a routine hearing, sent shockwaves through the legal fraternity — a space where decorum, civility, and respect for judicial authority form the very fabric of professional conduct.

The Attorney General for India (AGI), as required under the Contempt of Courts Act, has already given consent to initiate contempt proceedings against the lawyer. The SCBA, in its petition, emphasized that the act was not merely a display of personal frustration but an “affront to the dignity of the institution itself.”

According to the SCBA’s official statement, “The act of attempting to physically assault the Chief Justice inside the courtroom strikes at the root of judicial independence and the rule of law. Such conduct cannot be countenanced under any circumstances.”

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the matter, the focus extends beyond the actions of a single individual — toward the deeper question of how far the court can, and should, go to protect its own dignity in an era of heightened public scrutiny and institutional criticism.

Why This Case Matters: The Court as an Institution, Not a Personality

Contempt proceedings in India are not about shielding judges from criticism. Rather, they are about safeguarding public confidence in the administration of justice. In this case, the act occurred inside the courtroom and was directed toward the Chief Justice himself — transforming a symbolic protest into a potential act of physical contempt.

Legal experts note that Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines criminal contempt to include any act that “scandalizes or tends to scandalize” or “lowers the authority of any court.” The shoe-throwing episode, therefore, falls within the ambit of direct criminal contempt — one that not only undermines decorum but threatens the perceived sanctity of judicial spaces.

In recent years, the judiciary has demonstrated restraint in contempt cases, often declining to pursue action against strong words or criticism made outside court. However, acts of physical aggression — especially within the courtroom — strike a different chord. They blur the line between free expression and institutional attack.

The Attorney General’s Role: Consent as Constitutional Safeguard

Under Indian law, initiating contempt proceedings in cases not brought suo motu by the court requires the consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General. This procedural check ensures that contempt powers are not exercised lightly or vindictively.

In this instance, the Attorney General’s approval signifies more than just procedural compliance; it represents an acknowledgment that the act potentially meets the threshold for criminal contempt. The AG’s consent also indicates the state’s recognition that the judiciary’s authority is intertwined with democratic order — and that disrespect toward the court, if left unchecked, could erode broader confidence in the justice system.

The SCBA’s Position: Defending Judicial Dignity

The Supreme Court Bar Association, representing the collective voice of the legal profession at the nation’s highest court, has taken a strong stance. Its petition asserts that the episode was not an isolated instance of misconduct but a “wilful act of contempt intended to demean the institution.”

The SCBA’s leadership has emphasized that advocates, as officers of the court, bear a dual responsibility — to their clients and to the justice system itself. Crossing that boundary, the body argues, threatens not only the judiciary’s integrity but also the professional ethos that underpins advocacy.

The association’s move to formally seek contempt proceedings reflects a broader commitment to preserving the dignity of the Bar–Bench relationship, one of the most critical and delicate dynamics in Indian constitutional practice.

A Pattern of Erosion: Civility Under Strain in India’s Courtrooms

While rare, acts of aggression in courtrooms are not entirely unprecedented. In the past decade, there have been sporadic incidents of litigants shouting at judges, threatening lawyers, or using social media to defame judicial officers. What distinguishes this case is its setting — the Supreme Court of India, where such a breakdown of decorum has virtually no precedent in recent history.

Legal observers argue that this episode underscores an uncomfortable trend: the gradual erosion of courtroom civility in a climate of populist outrage and hyper-personalized grievance. Court proceedings, once governed by strict conventions of respect, are increasingly subject to emotional outbursts — often amplified by the pressure of public visibility.

Bar associations across the country have, over the years, warned against this erosion. The Bar Council of India (BCI) and several High Court bar associations have issued circulars reminding advocates that professional conduct extends to demeanor within courtrooms. The SCBA’s petition, therefore, also serves as a reminder to the profession itself — that the legitimacy of advocacy depends on maintaining the moral authority of judicial institutions.

Balancing Contempt Powers and Free Expression

The contempt jurisdiction of courts has always been contentious. Critics argue that it grants judges excessive power to silence dissent. Supporters contend that without it, judicial independence would crumble under public intimidation and political pressure.

In 2020, the Supreme Court faced criticism for invoking contempt proceedings against civil rights lawyer Prashant Bhushan over remarks made on Twitter. That case reignited debates about the limits of free speech vis-à-vis judicial dignity. But the present case is categorically different: it involves a physical act of aggression, not a verbal or written critique.

Even so, the question of proportionality remains. Should the court impose a harsh punishment to set an example, or exercise restraint to signal magnanimity? Legal scholars often remind that contempt power, though absolute in theory, must be used sparingly and judiciously, consistent with constitutional guarantees of expression and personal liberty.

The outcome of this case will likely be interpreted as a signal of how the judiciary perceives its own authority in the face of public provocation.

Institutional Integrity and Public Perception

The episode has rekindled discussion around “institutional integrity” — a phrase the Supreme Court has invoked in numerous judgments to denote the ethical cohesion and moral authority of constitutional organs. The court’s response to the shoe-throwing incident will thus resonate beyond the four walls of Court No. 1.

If handled with a balanced approach — firm yet fair — it could reinforce public faith in the judiciary as both strong and self-assured. Conversely, if perceived as overly punitive, it could invite renewed criticism of the court’s sensitivity to dissent.

Observers note that the judiciary today operates in an environment of increased public scrutiny, where every decision, gesture, and statement is instantly debated in digital spaces. Protecting institutional dignity in such a milieu requires not just authority but also transparency and restraint.

What Lies Ahead

As the contempt petition comes up for hearing, several procedural possibilities lie ahead:

• The court may issue notice to the accused advocate, calling for an explanation before framing charges.

• It may direct the SCBA and the AG to present a factual chronology of the incident.

• Depending on the submissions, the bench could either proceed with full contempt proceedings or refer the matter to a larger bench for deliberation on principles governing courtroom misconduct.

If the act is established as deliberate and egregious, the court could impose penalties ranging from a fine to imprisonment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, in similar past cases, courts have also considered apologies and expressions of remorse as mitigating factors.

A Defining Moment for the Legal Community

Beyond the courtroom, this case has sparked introspection within the legal fraternity. Senior advocates have described it as a “moment of reckoning” for the profession’s standards of discipline. Several bar leaders have privately expressed concern that the rising intensity of confrontation — both within and outside court — is corroding the Bar’s collective credibility.

Many lawyers believe the SCBA’s decision to step in, rather than leaving the matter entirely to the bench, sends an important message: defending judicial dignity is not only the court’s prerogative but also the Bar’s duty.

This distinction is crucial. It underlines that professional self-regulation, not just judicial sanction, is essential to maintaining the moral architecture of the justice system.

Conclusion: Dignity, Discipline, and the Future of Judicial Authority

The Supreme Court’s upcoming hearing is more than a procedural matter; it is a test of how India’s judiciary defines its own dignity in the modern age. In an era of heightened public emotion, instant outrage, and declining institutional deference, the balance between judicial authority and public accountability has never been more delicate.

The contempt petition filed by the SCBA represents an assertion of collective responsibility — a reminder that in the grand structure of constitutional democracy, respect for institutions sustains the rule of law.

As the country watches the proceedings unfold, the question is not only what punishment the court might impose, but also what message it chooses to send — about restraint, responsibility, and the enduring sanctity of India’s highest judicial forum.