Shoe-Hurling at CJI: Supreme Court Refuses Contempt Action Against Advocate Rakesh Kishore

The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) seeking contempt action against Kishore and a John Doe order to curb online glorification of the incident.

Appearing for the SCBA, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh said the association had initially chosen not to pursue the matter, respecting the CJI’s decision to pardon the advocate. However, he said, “His conduct thereafter, giving interviews and claiming divine instruction to repeat the act, has made a mockery of the institution. We can’t let this incident go.”

Justice Surya Kant acknowledged the gravity of the act but noted that the Chief Justice himself had pardoned the advocate. “There’s absolutely no doubt that the very first act is serious and grave. The only question is, once the Chief Justice of India has chosen to pardon him, can we still pursue contempt?” he asked.

Singh responded that the CJI’s pardon was in his personal capacity and not on behalf of the institution. “This is about the dignity of the court itself,” he submitted.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked that throwing a shoe or shouting slogans in court constitutes contempt on the face of it under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, he added that it is for the concerned judge, in this case, the CJI; to decide whether to initiate proceedings. “The CJI, in his magnanimity, chose to ignore the act,” Justice Bagchi observed, questioning whether another bench or even the Attorney General could independently initiate contempt under Section 15.

The Bench clarified that it was not inclined to pursue contempt but would consider laying down guidelines to address glorification of such acts and to strengthen courtroom security. “We are with you on the issue of glorification and security. Preventive measures are needed,” Justice Kant said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was present during the hearing, supported the Bar’s concerns but urged caution. “His shelf life on social media is only a few days. Issuing notice might extend it, he may start playing the victim,” Mehta said.

Justice Kant agreed, observing, “Channels know showing him generates revenue. Giving undue attention only fuels glorification. Such persons have no place in the system.”

Singh noted that the Bar has since become more cautious in granting membership, remarking that the advocate felt emboldened because no action was taken at the time. “Had he been jailed that day, this glorification might not have happened,” he said.

Justice Kant, however, cautioned that “any instant punitive reaction could have provoked further irresponsible behaviour,” adding that the judiciary must respond with restraint and wisdom.

The Bench requested preventive suggestions from the Bar and the government to tackle such incidents, stating it would revisit the matter after a week. “The judiciary is thick-skinned,” Justice Kant remarked, “but we will ensure such acts are not repeated.”

The Court also dismissed a writ petition filed on the same issue, calling it not maintainable.

With this, the Bench effectively closed the chapter on contempt while keeping alive the broader discussion on how to safeguard judicial dignity in the digital age.

Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. Rakesh Kishore

Hearing Date: October 27, 2025

Bench: Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi