On 6 October 2025, during court proceedings in the Supreme Court of India, advocate Rakesh Kishore attempted to throw a shoe at the Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai (CJI). The lawyer identified as Rakesh Kishore, claimed that CJI’s statement in an earlier hearing was perceived insult to “Sanatan Dharma”.

The incident triggered widespread condemnation. The Chief Justice refused any action and said that “it would rather let the incident die a natural death than fuel further social media debates.” Bar Council of India suspended Kishore from practice, and Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) terminated his temporary membership.

SCBA has also initiated criminal contempt proceedings against Kishore under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975. We will analyse below the factual, procedural and legal aspects of this proceeding.

Courtesy: PIB

Consent of the Attorney General of India

As the Supreme Court did not initiate a criminal contempt action against Kishore, the initiation of criminal contempt proceedings requires the consent of the Attorney General under section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. On October 26, SCBA sought Attorney General’s consent. The letter read:

The Executive Committee of the SCBA has unanimously resolved that such a direct attack on the judiciary cannot be overlooked, as it undermines the very foundation of the rule of law. Accordingly, we have prepared a petition for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against Mr. Rakesh Kishore.

AG R Venkatramani, granted his consent on October 26. His letter reads:

Upon careful consideration of the material placed before me, I am satisfied that the conduct of Rakesh Kishore amounts to criminal contempt of Hon’ble Supreme Court within the scope of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. His acts and utterances are not only scandalous but also calculated to demean the majesty and authority of the Supreme Court. Such behaviour strikes at the very foundation of the justice delivery system and has the clear tendency to lower public confidence In the Institution of the judiciary, and more so of the highest Court.

Filing and Listing

SCBA filed its criminal contempt petition on October 16. The petition was drawn by Advocate Meensesh Kumar Dubey and filed by Pragya Baghel, Secretary, SCBA. SCBA’s President Vikash Singh mentioned the matter before the bench presided over by Justice Surya Kant, which directed to list the matter on October 27.

Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 1 of 2025

Supreme Court Bar Association v. Rakesh Kishore

  • Justice Surya Kant
  • Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Hearing Reports

SCBA President Vikas Singh mentioned the matter before the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, requesting the court to list the matter on October 17. He argued:

This cannot simply pass without action. The person has shown no remorse. Consent from the Attorney General has already been granted for contempt proceedings. Social media is going wild over it,” Singh said, pressing for an early hearing.

The Bench remarked (as reported by Leafleft):

The Chief Justice has shown magnanimity; it reflects that the institution is not shaken by this. Why should we waste more time when there are urgent cases of people awaiting bail or justice?

However, as the SCBA President persisted, the Court allowed the listing. It directed:

List on 27.10.2025 before an appropriate Bench, subject to curing of defects, if any.

The matter was listed before a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant & Joymalya Bagchi. While the Bench acknowledged that the shoe-throwing amounted to “contempt on the face of the court”, it declined to issue a contempt notice against Rakesh Kishore, noting that the CJI himself had chosen not to initiate the proceedings, and that issuing a notice might “give undue importance” to the act and prolong its media shelf-life. The Court directed that the matter remain pending and asked both the Bar and the government to prepare suggestions for institutional guidelines on courtroom security, behaviour and social-media glorification of such conduct.

Court ordered:

Post this matter for further consideration on 10.11.2025.