Attack on the Chief Justice - An assault on the constitution

The shocking incident in which a lawyer attempted to hurl a shoe at the Chief Justice of India, Justice B.R. Gavai has deeply disturbed the nation. This is not just an attack on an individual judge but an assault on one of the four vital pillars of Indian democracy: the judiciary. While some argue that the lawyer’s act was a personal protest triggered by the Chief Justice’s remarks in a recent case, most observers view it as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary, itself a dangerous sign for a constitutional democracy.

The episode unfolded inside the Supreme Court while an important case was being heard. A 71-year-old lawyer, Rakesh Kishore, suddenly walked up to the podium and tried to throw his shoe at the Chief Justice. Thanks to alert security personnel, the attack was foiled and the lawyer was removed from the courtroom. Demonstrating remarkable composure, Justice Gavai brushed aside the incident, saying such acts would not affect him and urging everyone to remain calm. He even directed that court proceedings continue without interruption, an act that reflected the dignity of the chair he occupies.

Eyewitnesses reported that the assailant shouted slogans claiming that “India will not tolerate insults to Sanatana Dharma.” The Bar Council swiftly suspended his membership. The incident drew sharp condemnation from across the political spectrum. Prime Minister Narendra Modi personally telephoned Justice Gavai to express solidarity, calling the incident “an insult to every citizen of India.”

The attack came amid a controversy surrounding the Chief Justice’s recent remarks during a hearing on the restoration of a destroyed Vishnu idol in the Khajuraho-based Javeri Temple. The bench, comprising Justice Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, dismissed the petition on September 16, citing heritage-preservation restrictions. When the petitioner’s counsel persisted, the Chief Justice reportedly remarked that if the petitioner were a true devotee of Vishnu, he should simply pray and meditate instead of filing publicity-driven cases. The comment sparked outrage among certain Hindu organizations and social-media circles. The Vishva Hindu Parishad demanded restraint in judicial expression. Justice Gavai later clarified that he respected all faiths and believed in every religion but the controversy refused to die down.

It is widely believed that this lingering resentment prompted the lawyer’s violent act. Yet whatever the provocation, such behavior cannot be justified. Ironically, the Constitution that guarantees citizens the right to free expression is the very document under assault when that freedom is used to attack the judiciary. If even the Chief Justice of India cannot exercise his freedom of speech without facing physical threats, what security or liberty can an ordinary citizen hope for?

The attacker reportedly invoked “Sanatana Dharma” while committing the act. But no religion, certainly not Sanatana Dharma, teaches violence or intolerance. In recent times, however, the name of religion has too often been misused to silence dissent and intimidate opposing voices. The attack inside the Supreme Court, the nation’s highest temple of justice marks a new and alarming low. Even more disturbing are the attempts by a few to rationalize or justify the assault, reflecting a growing climate of intolerance that threatens India’s democratic ethos.

Justice B.R. Gavai, notably, is India’s second Dalit Chief Justice. Hailing from a distinguished public-service family in Maharashtra, he is the son of R.S. Gavai is a former MP and Governor of Bihar and Kerala. With such a background, Justice Gavai fully understands the weight of words and the responsibilities of his office. His remarks in court were evidently spontaneous and contextual, not malicious. The prompt clarification he issued later should have laid the matter to rest. Instead, it became the pretext for an act that undermines the sanctity of the judiciary itself.

This moment calls for responsible action from the Union government. Beyond condemnation, it must ensure that the nation’s highest judge and by extension the entire judiciary is provided with unshakable protection and respect. Public anxiety over the safety of even the Chief Justice cannot be allowed to fester. The government should take this opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to the independence of the judiciary and to dispel any perception of friction between the executive and the courts.

At its heart, the shoe-throwing incident is not about religion or individual emotion, it is about the rule of law. When violence enters the courtroom, the very foundation of the Republic trembles. The judiciary must remain fearless, independent, and protected from both physical and ideological intimidation. Defending the dignity of the Chief Justice is, therefore, not merely a matter of personal security it is a test of our collective faith in the Constitution itself