On the morning of October 6, 2025, the Supreme Court – long seen as the sanctum of Indian justice – was jolted by an act of aggression against the Chief Justice of India (CJI), BR Gavai, also the second Dalit Buddhist to occupy this constitutional position. Advocate Prashant Rakesh Kishore, aged 71, enrolled in the Bar Council of Delhi in 2009, engineered this attack in full open court as the CJI sat with his brother judge, Justice Vinod Chandran. Present in the Court No. 1, he attempted to throw an object (widely reported as a shoe) at the Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai. The act was accompanied by slogans, a rush of security, and a rare break in the solemnity of Court No. 1. Lawyers, judges, media and political actors all were drawn into a swirl of reactions that exposed undercurrents deeper than the moment itself. If nothing else, this single act was reflective of the dire hate and exclusion still heaped on India’s Dalit population.
A courtroom disrupted
The usual morning mention round in Supreme Court’s Court No. 1 turned chaotic within minutes. At around 11:35 a.m., an advocate in full courtroom attire stood, removed a shoe (or attempted to unroll a bundle), and sought to throw it toward the bench. The act was accompanied by a sharp slogan that “Sanatan Dharam ka Apmaan Nahi Sahega Hindustan.”
Lawyers present have recalled that the object barely reached the dais — security moved swiftly. The man was escorted out, the session halted briefly, and then resumed. Chief Justice Gavai, visibly composed, turned to the next advocate and said “Don’t get distracted. We are not distracted by this.” With that, the Court proceeded as though unshaken.
The man in the robe: Rakesh Kishore
The person behind the outburst was soon identified: Advocate Rakesh Kishore, aged 71, enrolled in the Bar Council of Delhi in 2009. He held multiple bar cards — including the Supreme Court Bar Association, Shahdara Bar Association, and BCD, as reported
According to the Indian Express, Kishore resides in Mayur Vihar Phase 1, Delhi, and over the years has been associated with disputes relating to his housing society. Residents say elections in his society have not been held in recent times; complaints against him include one over an alleged assault of a senior citizen in 2021. The Delhi Police that functions under the direct control of India’s dreaded Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) –and is known for its aggressive surveillance of ordinary citizens was surprisingly charitable with the offender. Charging protesting citizens with a draconian law, the UAPA, in this instance, the same force has chosen to go soft. Citing the “reason” that the SC Registry was not pressing charges, they released Kishore within hours, maintaining he had no prior criminal record. Since then, the offender has been widely interviewed by a government-friendly media.
“More offended by rule of law than religion?” Suspended advocate reacts to CJI’s Mauritius remark
Speculation was rife on the “motive” with media quick to attribute the contemptuous aggression at CJI Gavai’s reported remark to a petitioner who had prayed for “replacing” the deity of Vishnu at Khajurao, a UNESCO world site and under the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The CJI had later clarified his remarks in the Khajuraho case, emphasising respect for all religions and saying social media misinterpretations had amplified the controversy.
However, suspended advocate Rakesh Kishore, after being released by Delhi Police, has expressed discontent—not over any religious sentiment, but in response to a public statement made by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) during a visit abroad.
In a statement to news agency ANI, he said he was deeply hurt by what he perceived as mockery from the judiciary—especially comments by the CJI in a case involving a damaged Vishnu idol at Khajuraho. He asserted he felt “no regret” and claimed his act was a reaction to what he viewed as contempt directed at believers of Sanatan Dharma.
Referring to the CJI’s remarks in Mauritius — “The Indian legal system is governed by the rule of law, not the rule of bulldozers” — Kishore responded, stating, “…The CJI should consider that, holding such a high constitutional position, he ought to understand the significance of ‘Milord’ and maintain its dignity… You go to Mauritius and say that the country will not run with a bulldozer. I ask the CJI and those opposing me: Is the bulldozer action by Yogi ji against those who encroached on government property wrong? I am hurt and will continue to be so…”
Further, Kishore invoked “divine guidance,” saying that he could not rest after what he believed was an insult. He reiterated that he was neither drunk nor under influence, but acting from emotional distress. His reaction appears rooted more in political alignment and perceived personal affront than in any specific legal principle or religious issue.
#WATCH | Delhi: Countered on his action against the highest position holder in judiciary, suspended Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who attempted to hurl an object at CJI BR Gavai, says, “…CJI should think that when he is sitting on such a high constitutional post, he should… pic.twitter.com/6WgPZmQjO7
— ANI (@ANI) October 7, 2025
The Trigger: a temple idol, a viral remark, and Mauritius speech on ‘Bulldozer Justice’
The roots of Rakesh Kishore’s outburst appear to lie in entrenched casteist hatred and perceived ideological insult. In September 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed a public interest petition seeking the reconstruction of a damaged Lord Vishnu idol at the Javari Temple in Khajuraho. When the bench — led by CJI B.R. Gavai — rejected the plea, the Chief Justice remarked, “Go and ask the deity itself to do something.”
While intended to highlight the Court’s view that the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), the comment sparked a firestorm online. It was widely seen — and misrepresented — as flippant and disrespectful to religious sentiments. Social media amplified the controversy, framing it as an affront to Sanatan Dharma, giving rise to a charged narrative of judicial insensitivity.
Further CJI Gavai’s recent speech in Mauritius, where he invoked his 2024 ruling on illegal demolitions, reminding the world that the highest court in the land stands against injustice. In that judgment, the Court had clearly held that the executive cannot act as judge, jury, and executioner.
SC Judgment A Clear Message That India Governed By Rule Of Law & Not Rule Of Bulldozer : CJI BR Gavai In Mauritius#SupremeCourt #CJIBRGavai https://t.co/vxQzhxm2ir
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) October 3, 2025
Citing this principle abroad, the CJI said, “The Indian legal system is governed by the Rule of Law, not by the rule of the bulldozer.” Though meant to reaffirm constitutional values, this statement became another flashpoint. Critics like Kishore interpreted it as an indirect attack on certain state-level actions — particularly in Uttar Pradesh. Amid these twin provocations, Kishore claimed he acted out of emotional distress and divine compulsion, viewing both statements as cumulative insults to his faith and belief system.
There is a further twist to the tale. During the Dussehra vacation of the Supreme Court Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh (a state that has been one of the prime offenders in aggressive demolitions of minority properties and places of worship) saw a series of demolitions, including the ancestral home of Olympic Gold Medallist and Padma Shri Mohd. Shahid demolished in Varanasi Road widening drive, end September.
Online Hate Build-Up against CJI Gavai
The attack on CJI Gavai and his august office as also his identity did not happen in isolation. Weeks before far right platforms were airing interviews instigating violence against India’s first Buddhist Chief Justice. Right wing “influencer”, Ajeet bharti with Kaushlesh Rai and Editor of Opindia (another instigator rightwing digital platform), Anupam Singh can be heard inciting people to violence against the CJI. During the conversation, Kaushlesh says, “I’m a Gandhian. I don’t support violence. If I did, I would have said, ‘Look, if Gavai ji gets into a fight, he lives in the courthouse, and there are Hindu lawyers there. At least one Hindu lawyer should grab Gavai ji’s head and hit him hard against the wall, so that it breaks into two pieces. But I don’t support violence at all.’ During the conversation, Ajit Bharti had also suggested surrounding Justice Gavai’s car. Kaushlesh Rai goes on to say, “Oct 2nd is coming, what Godse did is beyond your capability, but you can become Gandhi. What is the max punishment for spitting in Gavai’s face under the IPC? Not more than Six months? It’s nothing more than that. Hindus can’t even do this?”
Bar Council of India suspends lawyer
Within hours of the shocking display of hate and contempt, the Bar Council of India (BCI) issued an interim suspension of Kishore’s license to practice. The BCI’s order — under the Advocates Act, 1961 — called his conduct “prima facie inconsistent with the dignity of the Court.”
#BREAKING| BCI suspends practice of Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who attempted to attack CJI BR Gavai today
The Council has also initiated disciplinary proceedings against Kishore #SupremeCourt #cjibrgavai pic.twitter.com/Pv4lvPYTaV
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) October 6, 2025
According to order, he has been barred from appearing, pleading, acting or practising in any court or tribunal across India. Courts, tribunals and bar associations were to be informed. A show-cause notice was issued, requiring Kishore to explain in 15 days why the suspension should not continue.
Courts and its pesky choices
To date, the Supreme Court Registrar General opted not to initiate criminal proceedings. The Delhi Police, after questioning Kishore for a few hours, released him, citing lack of a case file from the Court, as per reports
The Court itself stayed silent in public. It neither issued a press release nor filed an FIR. Some legal observers interpreted this as a strategic restraint—refusing to magnify the act by escalating it. Yet many felt a full judicial revulsion or contempt action would have better affirmed the Apex Court’s institutional strength.
Legal fraternity condemnation
Leading bar bodies and senior advocates were quick to speak out. The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) called the act “unbecoming” of a lawyer and urged suo moto contempt proceedings. They argued the gesture threatened to “scandalise the office of the CJI” and damage public faith in the court.
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) passes resolution condemning the “unwarranted and intemperate gesture” of an advocate who allegedly disrespected the Chief Justice of India and companion judges, calling it an assault on judicial independence.#SupremeCourt pic.twitter.com/0PWFOq1lCl
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) October 6, 2025
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) condemned the act in strong terms, stressing institutional dignity, decorum and constitutional duty.
It was senior counsel, Kapil Sibal’s tweet on X at around 5 p.m. yesterday, October 6 that pushed the moral bar high, commenting on the absence of any condemnation from either the Prime Minister, Home Minister or Law Minister.
CJI
The uncivilised behaviour of a member of the Supreme Court Bar must be publicly condemned by one and all since it is affront to the majesty of the court
The silence of the PM , the Home Minister and the Law Minister is to say the least surprising
— Kapil Sibal (@KapilSibal) October 6, 2025
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has unanimously condemned the “reprehensible act” by an advocate inside the courtroom of CJI Justice B.R. Gavai on Oct 6. Calling the conduct “utterly unbecoming of an officer of the court,” the SCBA said it strikes at the foundation of mutual… pic.twitter.com/VHcF3RNovh
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) October 6, 2025
Senior advocate Indira Jaising went further, labelling the act “ideological and casteist” and calling upon the Attorney General to initiate contempt of court action. She urged the Supreme Court judges to issue a united statement rejecting ideological attacks on secular courts.
Attorney General should take action for contempt of court for an ideological castest attack on a secular court https://t.co/Fk4XrWTGOX
— Indira Jaising (@IJaising) October 6, 2025
The Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, offered a more tempered take. He condemned the act as a product of misinformation and social media frenzy, praised the CJI’s composure, and warned that his restraint must not be mistaken for institutional weakness.
Attack on the CJI is an assault on the dignity of our judiciary and the spirit of our Constitution: Rahul Gandhi
Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition, took to X to lambast the attack, “The attack on the Chief Justice of India is an assault on the dignity of our judiciary and the spirit of our Constitution.”
The attack on the Chief Justice of India is an assault on the dignity of our judiciary and the spirit of our Constitution.
Such hatred has no place in our nation and must be condemned.
— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) October 6, 2025
Congress directed criticism at Prime Minister Narendra Modi, noting that for hours the PM’s office remained silent. In a post, Congress taunted the PM: “Your silence is deafening — it screams complicity.”
“India’s Chief Justice B.R. Gavai was brazenly attacked in the Supreme Court today. Yet, not one word of condemnation from the Prime Minister so far. Mr. Modi, your silence is deafening and screams of complicity. You must speak up.”
India’s Chief Justice B.R. Gavai was brazenly attacked in the Supreme Court today.
Yet, not one word of condemnation from the Prime Minister so far.
Mr. Modi, your silence is deafening and screams of complicity.
You must speak up. pic.twitter.com/vodFnPjMye
— Congress (@INCIndia) October 6, 2025
Sonia Gandhi, former party president, expressed “profound distress,” calling the act an “assault not just on the CJI, but on the Constitution.”
“No words are adequate to condemn the attack on the Honourable Chief Justice of India in the Supreme Court itself. It is an assault not just on him, but on our Constitution as well. Chief Justice Gavai has been very gracious but the nation must stand in solidarity with him unitedly with a deep sense of anguish and outrage” she said
Statement of CPP Chairperson Smt. Sonia Gandhi Ji
No words are adequate to condemn the attack on the Honourable Chief Justice of India in the Supreme Court itself. It is an assault not just on him, but on our Constitution as well.
Chief Justice Gavai has been very gracious… pic.twitter.com/3FgEk2q5gV
— Congress (@INCIndia) October 6, 2025
There is no place for such reprehensible acts in our society, utterly condemnable: PM Modi
Pressure mounted. Late evening on October 6, PM Modi posted a condemnation. He wrote, “Spoke to CJI BR Gavai. The act is utterly condemnable. Such reprehensible behaviour has no place in a civilised society.” He hailed the CJI’s composure as a testament to judicial dignity.
Despite this, critics noted that the PM’s response came only after public pressure escalated. The delay was spun as political hesitation.
“I appreciated the calm displayed by Justice Gavai in the face of such a situation. It highlights his commitment to values of justice and strengthening the spirit of our Constitution” PM Modi said
Spoke to Chief Justice of India, Justice BR Gavai Ji. The attack on him earlier today in the Supreme Court premises has angered every Indian. There is no place for such reprehensible acts in our society. It is utterly condemnable.
I appreciated the calm displayed by Justice…
— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) October 6, 2025
Underlying currents: caste, religion & polarisation
The act was not merely a shocking security breach — it looked like a violent manifestation of ideological, religious and caste bias.
CJI Gavai is a practising Buddhist from the Dalit community, and some spokespeople observed that targeting him via religious slogans—Sanatan Dharma—had distinct caste overtones. The fact that a lawyer in the name of religious pride attempted assault on a Dalit judge stirred discomfort.
In legal circles, there is now renewed urgency around access control as how did a man with a proximity card enter the courtroom and bring an item?
The attacker was in full uniform , wearing a proximity card and was carrying a bag as well along with a rolled up bundle of some papers. He apologized to J. Chandran saying that “it” was only for J. Gavai.
— Anas Tanwir (@Vakeel_Sb) October 6, 2025
The unflinching bench: how the chief justice responded
What has drawn admiration across the board is CJI Gavai’s restraint during the moment. As chaos briefly erupted, he paused, remained still, and directed his courtroom not to be distracted. That calmness — amid a surprise attack — was lauded inside and outside legal circles.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, commenting on an unusual incident, praised the CJI Gavai for maintaining a calm and composed demeanour throughout. He noted that such odd events are not unprecedented in the Indian judiciary. Recalling a similar episode from the past, he mentioned that CJI Hidayatullah, who was also from Nagpur, once had a shoe thrown at him by a disgruntled litigant.
Displaying remarkable composure and wit, Justice Hidayatullah reportedly said, “The man has lost his case, he should not lose his shoe as well.”
Full marks to the calm and composed demeanour with which the CJI continued the proceedings. Such odd events have happened before as well. CJI Hidayatullah, also from Nagpur had a shoe thrown by a disgruntled litigant. He ordered the shoe to be returned saying, “The man has lost… https://t.co/9XXfBjOwDV
— SANJAY HEGDE (@sanjayuvacha) October 6, 2025
Inside the court, no visible disruption followed the incident. The CJI continued hearing cases scheduled for the day, according to sources. His poise came to symbolise institutional durability in the face of provocation.
What comes next — contempt proceedings? Will the court act?
Legal bodies like SCAORA and senior advocates have urged the Supreme Court to take suo moto contempt notice, emphasising that any attempt to assault or scandalise the highest seat of justice cannot go unchecked.
While the CJI displayed remarkable composure, the judiciary now faces a crucial moment, whether to continue exercising restraint or to respond firmly to uphold its institutional authority.
Beyond contempt proceedings, the Court should consider imposing some penalty, and setting a clear precedent against courtroom misconduct—especially when it’s cloaked in ideological justification. Such steps would necessary for public trust, protect judicial dignity, and send a strong message that the sanctity of the courtroom is inviolable. The need for a unified condemnation of the incident by the whole of the Supreme Court is also the need of the hour.
The nation now watches: will the Supreme Court let the moment pass — or rise to define it?
Related: