A shocking incident in India’s Supreme Court recently highlighted growing intolerance and threats to the judicial system. Advocate Rakesh Kishore, 71, threw a shoe at Chief Justice BR Gavai in open court. The attack was not random—it was meant to intimidate and challenge the authority of a constitutional system that is meant to be fair, impartial, and non-discriminatory.
The controversy began when Justice Gavai dismissed a petition to reconstruct a damaged Lord Vishnu idol at a Khajuraho temple. While dismissing the plea, he made remarks suggesting the petitioner should pray or meditate instead of filing the case. These comments were intended as observations, not insults, and the court’s judgment explained that the issue was under the Archaeological Survey of India’s jurisdiction. However, social media outrage fueled by political groups quickly escalated the situation. Memes, hashtags, and videos attacked the Chief Justice, forcing him to clarify his commitment to secularism and respect for all religions.
In this charged atmosphere, Kishore claimed he was defending Sanatan Dharma and threw the shoe, shouting, “Sanatan Dharma ka apmaan, nahi sahega Hindustan” (the abuse of Sanatan Dharma will not be tolerated in India). Justice Gavai, maintaining great composure, chose not to file a complaint against Kishore. Meanwhile, Kishore openly stated that he would repeat the act if given a chance. Despite being clearly guilty of contempt of court, he has faced no serious legal action. Social media users have applauded him, and the police have taken a hands-off approach.
The delayed response from political leaders also raises concerns. Law Minister Arjun Meghwal remained silent, and it took eight hours for Prime Minister Narendra Modi to condemn the act on Twitter, calling it “reprehensible.” The response, though welcome, is inconsistent with previous incidents. For example, BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur openly glorified Nathuram Godse in 2019 but faced no real consequences during her parliamentary term. Advocate Kishore, like Thakur, is part of a belief system that claims to defend Hindu religion but tolerates violence to make a political statement.
This incident reflects a broader trend where religion is used as a tool to challenge institutions. In both cases—Godse’s assassination of Mahatma Gandhi and Kishore’s shoe attack—the message is the same: any perceived insult to the faith can justify violent action. Such acts are increasingly normalized, whether by right-wing Hindutva supporters or radical groups from other communities, creating a dangerous culture of retaliation based on “hurt sentiments.”
Chief Justice BR Gavai is the second Dalit to hold India’s highest judicial position. He comes from a family deeply rooted in Ambedkarite and neo-Buddhist values. His father, RS Gavai, was a prominent leader in the Republican Party of India, advocating for equality and social justice. Justice Gavai’s appointment symbolizes progress toward equal opportunities for historically oppressed communities, but it also makes him a target for attacks from those seeking to assert majority dominance.
His past rulings have already attracted online campaigns from right-wing groups. For instance, when he opposed arbitrary demolitions under so-called “bulldozer justice,” social media attacks targeted him, reflecting tensions between a secular judiciary and a politically assertive Hindutva ideology. Kishore’s shoe-throwing act must be seen in this context: it is an attempt to impose religious supremacy over a secular constitutional framework.
ALSO READ: AIIMS Delhi performs India’s first robotic kidney transplant on patient with renal failure
ALSO READ: Upcoming fighter jets set to modernize the Indian Air Force by 2035
The act was deliberate, not the result of a momentary lapse of judgment. Kishore’s public display of anger was a political statement designed to undermine the judicial system. It reflects a worldview that seeks to replace equal citizenship and rule of law with a Hindu-majority model, where the largest religious group holds power over justice. Such thinking is dangerous in a multi-religious democracy, and acts of coercion or violence must be condemned universally.
The case also raises uncomfortable questions about societal bias. What if Kishore had been a Muslim or from another minority group? Would he have faced harsher laws such as the National Security Act or Public Safety Act? Would the courts or police have been as lenient? These are important questions because they reveal how public opinion and political biases can influence justice.
Ultimately, the incident exposes a deeper problem: intolerance, polarisation, and the normalization of aggression in public life. Social media amplification, political patronage, and a lack of consistent legal action create an environment where violent acts can be celebrated rather than condemned. In a democracy, law must remain above religion, and threats to judicial independence cannot be tolerated.
Justice Gavai’s restraint and dignity in this incident serve as an example of how the judiciary can rise above provocation. But the growing culture of intolerance, the celebration of acts like Kishore’s, and the lack of decisive legal action highlight the urgent need to protect constitutional institutions. In a society where hurt sentiments can justify violence, the rule of law must be firmly upheld to ensure justice for all, regardless of caste, religion, or political affiliation.
Copyright © © 2022 Copyright. All Rights Reserved with Arth Parkash