No Regret, No Fear: Lawyer Who Attacked Chief Justice Claims ‘Divine Power Made Me Do It’
A frightening courtroom drama transpired at India's top court this week, when senior advocate Rakesh Kishore threw a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai during a hearing on Monday. Although the shoe missed its goal, the incident sparked fury among the legal community and resulted in fast disciplinary action by the Bar Council of India. However, Kishore refuses to apologise, stating that he was influenced by a "divine power."
According to officials and eyewitnesses, the event occurred at approximately 11:35 a.m. inside Court No. 1 as regular hearings were underway. Kishore reportedly took off his sports shoes and hurled one at the Chief Justice, yelling, "India will not tolerate the insult of Sanatan Dharma." Security personnel immediately intervened, restraining and taking him from the courtroom. The Chief Justice, maintaining cool, brushed away the behaviour, stating, "These things do not affect me," before returning to the hearing.
According to sources, Rakesh Kishore, 71, is a registered Supreme Court Bar Association member and a resident of Mayur Vihar in Delhi. He has been a member of the Bar Council of Delhi since 2009 and is well-known in the legal community for his ties with several bar associations, including Shahdara and the Supreme Court Bar Association. Police later confirmed his identify using the professional cards seized at the site.
Following the event, the Bar Council of India (BCI) issued an interim suspension order against Kishore, describing his actions as "prima facie inconsistent with the dignity of the court." BCI Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra criticised the behaviour as a blatant breach of the Advocates behaviour of 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules, claiming that such behaviour "strikes at the foundation of the legal profession's integrity." A formal investigation has been launched to decide additional disciplinary action, including possible permanent disbarment.
As the scandal grew, Prime Minister Narendra Modi personally called Chief Justice Gavai to denounce the attack and praise his cool handling of the matter. The Prime Minister characterised the behaviour as "unacceptable in a democracy" and reiterated the government's commitment to upholding judicial institutions.
Kishore's reasons, however, remain unclear. In brief words to the media following his release, he reportedly stated, "I have no regret or fear. "A divine power led me to act." His remark, which echoes a mix of religious belief and defiance, has sparked debate over whether such behaviour is motivated by ideological fanaticism or personal instability. Legal experts worry that if such actions go unchallenged, they could set a dangerous precedent, undermining the sanctity of courtrooms and encouraging others to disrupt judicial processes on the basis of belief.
The event occurred just weeks after CJI Gavai drew online criticism for saying, "Go and ask the deity itself" during a hearing about the restoration of a damaged Vishnu idol in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh. While unrelated, Kishore's use of religious fury adds another level of sensitivity to the story, emphasising the growing confluence of faith and the court in public discourse.
For the time being, the Bar Council's investigation will determine Kishore's professional fate, but the moral damage is far more serious. The courtroom, a symbol of reason and justice, experienced a moment of turmoil that compelled India to consider the narrow line between faith and fanaticism, as well as the importance of protecting the dignity of its judicial institutions at all costs.
Sources: This report is based on publicly available information and media reports from NBC News, CNN, BBC, The Hindu, and The Times of India
Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog is for general guidance only and is not intended to serve as legal advice. While the events described are based on verified reports, interpretations or opinions expressed here are for informational purposes only. Readers are encouraged to consult official statements and credible sources before forming conclusions. The insights shared aim to inform and explain but should not replace professional legal counsel or authoritative judicial records.