In a dramatic turn of events, the Delhi Police have released Advocate Rakesh Kishore, a 71-year-old lawyer, who attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai during open court proceedings in the Supreme Court. The release followed after the Supreme Court Registrar General, reportedly acting on the instructions of the CJI, declined to pursue criminal charges against him.
Incident Details
The shocking incident took place during a court session when Advocate Rakesh Kishore suddenly approached the dais and tried to hurl a shoe toward the Chief Justice. Security personnel immediately intervened and restrained him before any harm could occur.
According to reports, Kishore’s outburst was a protest against CJI Gavai’s earlier remarks in a case related to the restoration of a Lord Vishnu idol at Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh. As he was being escorted out of the courtroom, Kishore shouted, “India will not tolerate insults to Sanatan Dharma.”
Officials later recovered a note containing a similar message from his possession, indicating the act was premeditated.
Bar Council of India’s Disciplinary Action
Reacting swiftly to the incident, the Bar Council of India (BCI) has suspended Advocate Kishore’s license with immediate effect. The BCI also announced that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him for his misconduct inside the Supreme Court premises.
Condemnation Across Legal and Political Circles
The act has drawn widespread condemnation from political leaders, legal associations, and members of the judiciary. Many described it as a disgraceful breach of court decorum and an attack on the dignity of the judiciary.
No Criminal Charges Filed
Despite the seriousness of the act, no criminal case was registered, as the Supreme Court reportedly decided not to press charges. Sources suggest that CJI Gavai preferred a lenient approach, considering the lawyer’s age and long-standing legal career.
Conclusion
The incident has sparked discussions across the legal fraternity on maintaining respect for judicial institutions while balancing the right to protest. As the Bar Council’s inquiry moves forward, the episode serves as a stark reminder of the need for restraint, dignity, and professionalism in the court of law.