BCI Suspends Advocate Rakesh Kishore for Attempted Attack on CJI B.R. Gavai
BCI notes that such conduct violates the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette, including maintaining dignity in court
The Bar Council of India (BCI) has suspended the practice of Advocate Rakesh Kishore, enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi (Enrolment No. D/1647/2009), following his attempted attack on Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai in Court No. 1 of the Supreme Court on 6th October 2025.
According to the interim order issued under the Advocates Act, 1961, Kishore allegedly removed his sports shoes and attempted to hurl them at the Chief Justice during ongoing proceedings. He was immediately detained by court security.
The BCI noted that such conduct violates the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette, including maintaining dignity in court and refraining from improper means to influence judicial proceedings. The order bars Kishore from appearing, acting, pleading, or practicing in any court, tribunal, or authority in India during the suspension period.
Disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him, and a show cause notice has been issued requiring Kishore to explain, within 15 days, why the suspension should not continue. All courts and Bar Associations have been notified, and any court-issued identity or access passes held by Kishore have been rendered inoperative.
BCI Chairman Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra emphasized that the order is interim and without prejudice to further proceedings under law.
Today morning, the Supreme Court of India witnessed a brief moment of chaos today when a lawyer attempted to attack the Chief Justice of India, Justice BR Gavai, during ongoing proceedings.
The attacker, dressed in full uniform and carrying a bag along with a rolled-up bundle of papers, was quickly restrained and escorted out of the courtroom. As he was removed, he reportedly shouted, “Sanatan ka apmaan nahi sahega Hindustan,” sparking concern among those present. He later apologized to Justice K. Vinod Chandran, clarifying that his actions were intended only for Justice Gavai.
Despite the disruption, Justice Gavai maintained composure and continued with the hearing uninterrupted.
Recently, the CJI had clarified his remarks made during a recent hearing relating to the restoration of a 7-foot beheaded idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari temple in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh. "I respect all religions", CJI Gavai said today in court while responding to reactions on his comments made during the Khajuraho Vishnu Idol matter.
Notably, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the All India Lawyers Union (AILU) issued separate statements condemning the incident in which an advocate allegedly hurled a shoe toward the CJI inside the Supreme Court.
The SCBA has also issued a strongly worded statement condemning the advocate who attempted to attack Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai inside his courtroom on October 6, calling the act “reprehensible,” “unbecoming of an officer of the Court,” and “a direct assault on judicial independence.” The incident reportedly stemmed from a backlash to the Chief Justice’s observations in the Khajuraho Vishnu Idol Restoration case, where he had emphasized respect for all religions and later clarified his remarks following social media distortions.
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCOARA) has also strongly condemned the recent act of an advocate who, through an unwarranted and intemperate gesture, attempted to disrespect the office of the Chief Justice of India and his companion judges.
Describing the conduct as “cowardly” and “unbecoming of a member of the Bar,” SCOARA said such behavior strikes at the core of mutual respect between the Bench and the Bar and undermines public faith in the justice delivery system.
SCOARA reaffirmed its solidarity with the Chief Justice of India and the Supreme Court, urging the legal fraternity to uphold professional decorum, preserve the dignity of the institution, and refrain from divisive conduct. The association further recommended that the Supreme Court may take suo motu cognizance of the incident and initiate appropriate proceedings for contempt, highlighting that freedom of speech carries a duty of restraint, particularly for officers of the Court.