Chief Justice BR Gavai attacked by 71-year-old advocate

Chief Justice BR Gavai attacked in court

Chief Justice BR Gavai was shocked by an attempted attack when a 71-year-old advocate, Rakesh Kishore, hurled a shoe at him during Supreme Court proceedings. The courtroom went tense. The justice, however, remained composed and continued.

In this post I’ll use Chief Justice BR Gavai (the focus) across the title, subheading and early lines. I’ll walk you through background, motive, responses in New Delhi, Bengaluru, Mumbai, and broader implications. I’ll also sprinkle long-tail search phrases naturally as we go.

Chief Justice BR Gavai handled it with composure, and then what—political leaders weighed in, with the Prime Minister condemning the act as reprehensible and praising the CJI’s calm, which only amplified the trend across Delhi, Mumbai, and beyond. I mean, this wasn’t just a courtroom disturbance; it morphed into a countrywide conversation on respect for institutions.

What sparked the trend — why this is trending now

#WATCH | Suspended Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who attempted to hurl a shoe at CJI BR Gavai:

“.. A PIL was filed in the Court of CJI on 16th Sept. The CJI mocked it and said – go and pray to the idol and tell it to restore its own head..

When Nupur Sharma’s matter came up before… pic.twitter.com/gWFPXLccoJ

— Organiser Weekly (@eOrganiser) October 7, 2025

It’s not every day you hear of an attack inside the Supreme Court. This incident made headlines because it threatens the dignity of the judiciary itself.

Earlier, CJI Gavai had made remarks while dismissing a PIL about restoring a Lord Vishnu idol in Khajuraho. He said, “Go and ask the deity itself to do something…” which many saw as mocking the petitioner.

The remark stirred outrage in some quarters. Advocate Rakesh Kishore later claimed he was deeply hurt by those words.

So when the shoe attack happened, many interpreted it not as random rage but as a symbolic protest over perceived judicial insensitivity.

Don’t miss this deep dive on Bihar Election 2025 – Modi’s ₹1,000 to Graduates gambit — how welfare meets politics in a bold, controversial move.

In Bengaluru, legal associations condemned the act, calling it contempt of court. ( Source: The Times of India)
In Kerala, the state chief minister blamed communal propaganda, saying this was not just individual outrage.

Moreover, the Bar Council moved fast with a suspension, which fueled talk shows and social timelines from New Delhi to Lucknow and Pune—prompting questions about security protocols and lines of dissent in a constitutional space. The CJI’s choice to continue proceedings—“don’t get distracted”—added to the narrative of restraint.

Background of this situation

Reports link the advocate’s anger to earlier courtroom remarks around a religious matter that had been clarified later by the CJI as respectful to all faiths, creating a sequence: remarks, outrage, then this dramatic attempt during case mentioning. Sources say security intervened swiftly; no injury occurred; proceedings resumed.

Public memory pulled in older debates about judicial comments and faith, which echoed from Delhi court corridors to conversations in Bengaluru cafes and Kolkata newsrooms—context that explains the speed of the trend. Not gonna lie, the symbolism overshadowed the technicalities.

Who is Rakesh Kishore

Rakesh Kishore, age 71, is a senior advocate registered with the Bar Council of Delhi since 2009. He holds multiple bar association memberships (Supreme Court Bar Association, Shahdara Bar Association).

After the attack, the Bar Council of India suspended his license immediately, stating his behavior was “inconsistent with dignity of the court.” Kishore has defended his act publicly: he says it wasn’t a spur-of-the-moment move or because of intoxication. Instead, he claims deep emotional distress over the CJI’s previous comments about the idol case.

Public reaction

On-ground and media reactions in Delhi and Mumbai focused on security gaps and norms of dissent, while voices from Bengaluru tech-law circles emphasized due process and restraint

The Prime Minister called the act condemnable and praised the CJI’s calm, signaling strong executive solidarity with judicial dignity. This drove nationwide visibility.

Legal bodies including the Bar Council and SCBA condemned the conduct, framing it as inconsistent with court dignity and professional ethics. That institutional censure shaped newsroom angles.

Expert voices

• Court reporters and legal correspondents noted that the CJI’s composure de-escalated the moment and protected the court’s rhythm—subtle, but powerful in terms of institutional optics.
• The Bar Council of India took swift action, suspending Kishore’s right to practice and initiating disciplinary proceedings.
• Law associations in Maharashtra, Goa, Nagpur, etc., called it an assault on the Constitution and demanded strong action.
• In Bengaluru, senior advocates urged stricter security in courts, emphasizing that dissent must remain within legal argument, not violence.
• Legal ethicists and senior advocates argued that while dissent is protected, symbolic violence inside the apex court crosses a red line and warrants swift professional discipline, not criminal escalation, given the CJI’s guidance.

If nupur sharma it's loose tounge n if CJI insults sanatan it's freedom of speech. Hypocracy at its best. pic.twitter.com/w4sWXVHqo3

— Trishool 🔱 (@Diverging_point) October 7, 2025

Why it matters

First, it tests courtroom security norms and access controls for proximity-card holders—an operational issue for Delhi Police’s security division and the Registry. Second, it spotlights the challenge of religious sentiment in legal discourse and the judiciary’s tightrope between openness and order. Third, it reinforces how leadership composure can cool hot moments—vital for public trust from Jaipur to Kolkata.

What’s your take — was this a justified protest or a dangerous overstep? Feel free to share or discuss this with friends on social media.