NATIONAL: Threat Won’t Shake Judiciary: Justice Gavai’s Stern Response
In a stunning turn of events, tension erupted in India’s apex court when an advocate hurled a shoe toward the Chief Justice during proceedings.
The act, caught on the spot by vigilant security, froze the courtroom in disbelief.
This rare breach of decorum has ignited debates on judicial decorum and personal grievances spilling into legal arenas.
The Courtroom Confrontation
The incident unfolded around 11:35 a.m. in the Supreme Court chamber as Justice B.R. Gavai presided over a routine hearing.
Advocate Rakesh Kishore, appearing before the bench, suddenly removed his sports shoe and flung it in the direction of the Chief Justice.
Quick intervention by security personnel prevented the object from reaching its target, and Kishore was swiftly restrained.
Reports suggest the outburst stemmed from frustration over a prior remark by Justice Gavai in a case involving a Lord Vishnu idol dispute, where he reportedly quipped, “Go ask your deity.”
The advocate shouted slogans like “Sanatan ka apmaan nahi sahenge,” translating to “We will not tolerate the insult to Sanatan Dharma,” before the attempt.
Chief Justice Remains Unshaken
Justice Gavai, maintaining remarkable poise, addressed the disruption without missing a beat.
“Such threats cannot affect me,” he stated calmly to the assembled lawyers and staff, underscoring his resolve amid the chaos.
Undeterred, he promptly resumed the session, signaling that judicial business would not bow to theatrics.
This display of steadfastness highlights the pressures faced by top judges, yet also the expectation of unflinching focus on the rule of law.
Swift Actions and Broader Implications
Delhi Police detained Kishore immediately after the episode, ensuring order was restored without further incident.
In a decisive move, the Bar Council of India suspended the advocate from practice, citing a grave violation of professional ethics.
As investigations continue, this episode serves as a stark reminder of the delicate balance between free expression and courtroom sanctity.