INDIAN JUDICIARY ON SELFINFLICTED MODE

 

The act of hurling a shoe at the Chief Justice of India, B.R. Gavai, during proceedings in his court by Rakesh Kishore, a senior practicing lawyer, on October 6, 2025, was widely condemned. The CJI was gracious enough to instruct the Supreme Court registrar not to take any action against the lawyer. But Toshar Mehta, the Additional Solicitor General, termed the incident of shoe hurling as unpardonable. However, the Supreme Court Bar Association expressed its profound shock, outrage, and disapproval. Consequently, the Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association terminated the temporary membership of advocate Rakesh Kishore. Also, the Bar Council of India immediately suspended his lawyer practicing license. What could be the reason behind such action by Rakesh Kishore, being a law-abiding person and practicing advocate? If thoroughly examined, perhaps   the advocate in the dock might have taken motivational force from the statements of former CJI DY Chanderachud, on the Ram Janambhomi judgment, he who had admitted “he prayed to God for a solution to Ram Janambhomi - Babri Masjid dispute which was tearing apart the social fabric of the country.” Instead of banking on the legal validity, legal reasoning and principles of law, the judges seek help from Gods in concluding judgments. This type of precedence has derailed the judiciary system, as a result of   shattered faith in justice and mistrust among the people in the country. Similarly, the advocate justified his act, claiming that God incited him to retaliate against the offensive words used by CJI B.R. Gavia against the Hindu deity during the court proceedings. CJI B.R. Gavith was deliberating on a petition filed by a litigant seeking the intervention of the highest court to pass a decree for the restoration of the amputated head of the Lord Vishnavi idol in Khajuraho temple in Madhya Pradesh. Shape Ironically, Rakesh Kishore, the advocate, had no remorse for his shameful act. As he was being pushed out of the courtroom, he shouted that the insult to the Santana Dharma would not be tolerated.   Instead of disposing of the petition by referring the matter either to the Archaeological Survey of India for repairs or declining the case, as its objective was to grab a publicity stunt by the petitioner. The CJI reverted with a sarcastic comment, saying,” So, and ask the deity itself to do something now. You say you are a staunch devotee of Lord Vishnu. So go and pray now. It is an archaeological site, and the Archaeological Survey of India needs to give permission, etc. Sorry,” while dismissing the case. The observation of the CJI had sparked rage, although he later clarified that he respected all religions. The Prime Minister condemned the shoe attack on the CJI as utterly reprehensible. There was a chorus of criticism across the political spectrum, including Mallikarjun Kharge, Congress President; Sonia Gandhi, Congress leader; A Revanth Reddy, Chief Minister of Telangana; Pinarayi Vijayan, Chief Minister of Kerala; and M.K. Stalin, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, who described the act of flinging a shoe as an assault on the judiciary. Many casteist politicians and certain academicians put the whole act of Rakesh Kishore of shoe flinging as a caste prejudice and a hostility towards the rise of a marginalised background class who rose to a position of authority. Their casteist interpretation became so vivid that Justices B.R Gavia, being of Ambedkarian lineage, was unknown to the common Indian. The Buddhist religious background of the Chief Justice of India became controversial CJI in the country. R.S Gavai, father of CJI, had served as the Governor of three states and was a member of both houses of the Indian Parliament. He was a member of the Maharashtra Legislative Council representing the Republican Party of India. With such a politically privileged background, how can the CJI be called marginalised, economically impoverished, as commented by certain elements of the ecosystem in the country? Contrary to labeling CJI among the marginalised by the castes lot of the country despite his highest status, Rakesh Kishore claims that he belonged to the Dalit class. The former Supreme Court Judge, Markandey Katju, condemned the shoe-throwing incident on the CJI, but blamed the CJI, B.R Gavai, for provoking the incident through unwarranted remarks about Lord Vishnu, which were inappropriate and unnecessary. He further opined that judges should speak less in court and avoid delivering sermons, homilies, and lectures. Such comments are never aimed at the minority community. But the fact remained that the unwanted remarks of the CJI had exasperated most of the Indian people. Social media was full of comments from various sections of society demanding that a case be filed against the CJI for uttering blasphemous words against Lord Vishnu. Regarding the remarks made by the CJI of India on a petition filed for the restoration of the idol of Lord Vishnu in Khajuraho, Vishnu Shankar Jain, a Supreme Court advocate, said that it was a mindset issue within the judiciary. There was a consistent pattern of discrimination against Hindus whenever they raised religious issues before the judiciary. Aloe Kumar, chief of Vishwa Hindu Parishad and a practicing lawyer, condemned the oral remark made by the CJI, saying that it mocked the faith of Hinduism. He added that it would be better to avoid such remarks when the matter was connected with religious sentiments. Dr Anand Ranganathan, author, scientist and TV personality, observed that the CJI respects all religions but mocks only one, because he knows that if he taunted over the restoration of the damaged mosque, to the petitioner, saying “go and ask Allah to do something,” chances were he would have met the same fate as the Vashnavites. It was easy to mock Hindus. The Supreme Court had been overlooking and blatantly dismissing Hindus, not for the first time, but in numerous instances; it was clear-cut discrimination. He reiterated that the Supreme Court, in the case of the Kashmiri Hindus, did not find any criminality in their mass displacement of 1990, with the plea that the episode was too late. Conversely, the Supreme Court constituted a Commission of Inquiry on the Sikh riots of 1984, which was six years older than the 1990 exodus of Kashmiri Hindus. One can observe the extreme partisanship of the Supreme Court in dealing with similar cases of human rights violations committed against two communities in the same democratic country under common constitutional rights. Initially, the Chief Justices of India should not have used such words against the Hindu deity, their faith, and belief. The Supreme Court has, in the past, heard many cases related to temple management or environmental issues, but the judges have never made any verbal remarks about the deity. The arguments in those cases were generally more focused on the subject matter. However, the ridiculing language used by the CJI regarding the restoration of Lord Vishnu was hurtful. Across the country, there was demand for the removal of the CJI because of his shocking behaviour and his Hindu-biased attitude. Certain critics stated that CJI was behaving like a dictator, passing decrees that threaten the integrity and sovereignty of the country. Already, the Indian Judiciary system had come under severe criticism for its millions of pending cases in the courts of India, as per the National Judicial Data Grid, for the role of collegiums in the selection of judges, and the finding of burnt wads of currency notes in the parking garage at the residence of a judge, which was echoed in the public. Droupadi Murumur, the president of India, pointed out the ongoing challenge of pending cases and acknowledged the role in increasing the public trust in the Judiciary in her address to the National Conference of District Judiciary in September 2024.

DISCLAIMER: 

The views expressed in the Article above are SURINDER KOUL   views and kashmiribhatta.in is not in any way responsible for the opinions expressed in the above article. The article belongs to its respective owner or owners and this site does not claim any right over it. Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing."

Courtesy: SURINDER KOUL   and  Spade A Spade,2025