High drama gripped the Supreme Court on Monday during open court proceedings when a 71-year-old lawyer allegedly attempted to attack Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai.

The disruption happened while the CJI-led Bench was hearing mentions of new matters. Multiple reports confirm that the lawyer moved toward the dais, took off his shoe, and appeared prepared to throw it before security stepped in. Their quick intervention prevented escalation, and he was immediately restrained and escorted out of Court No. 1.

As security personnel led him out, the lawyer shouted, “Sanatan ka apmaan nahi sahenge!” (We will not tolerate the insult of Sanatan Dharma). Inside the courtroom, the CJI stayed composed and urged everyone to continue with the work at hand, saying, “Don’t get distracted by all this. We are not distracted. These things do not affect me.” The calm tone helped the court return to business despite the shock of the interruption.

According to case watchers and media accounts, the outburst is believed to be linked to remarks made recently by the CJI during a hearing concerning the restoration of a beheaded seven-foot idol of Lord Vishnu at Khajuraho’s Javari temple. In that matter, while dismissing the plea, the Bench noted that the site is archaeological and that permissions are governed by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The CJI’s words—seen as a sarcastic nudge at the petitioner’s professed devotion—were quoted as: “Go and ask the deity itself to do something now. You say you are a staunch devotee of Lord Vishnu, so go and pray now. It’s an archaeological site, and ASI permission is needed.” The phrasing sparked an immediate social media backlash from users who felt it mocked faith.

In response to the controversy, the CJI later clarified in open court that his comments had been misconstrued, stating, “I respect all religions. What was circulated on social media was taken out of context,” and stressing that the matter involved procedural and jurisdictional limits, not a slight to belief.

Representing the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta supported the CJI and cautioned about how online platforms amplify reactions far beyond proportion. He said, “We have seen this...There is Newton's law which says every action has equal reaction, but now every action has disproportionate social media reaction, milord,” highlighting how virality often reframes courtroom exchanges as ideological flashpoints.

Editorial tone: The facts themselves describe a pattern that many citizens found troubling: a comment from the highest judicial office that sounded dismissive of devotion, followed by public anger, and finally a dramatic protest in court. The incident underlines how even passing judicial remarks on matters touching Sanatan faith are felt deeply, and why the expectation from the court’s leadership is rigorous restraint in language, especially when believers see the sacred being handled with levity.

Who exactly is Rakesh Kishore?

As reported, Rakesh Kishore is a 71-year-old Supreme Court lawyer and a resident of the Mayur Vihar area in the national capital. Initial details indicate he possessed a proximity card—a routine access credential given to advocates and clerks in the apex court—which allowed him to approach the front area before security stopped him. Police sources and court reporters identified him on Monday soon after the incident.

While the precise trigger for his act is not officially confirmed in police notes shared publicly yet, multiple outlets reported that he was upset over the CJI’s “ask your deity” phrasing during the September 16 hearing in the Vishnu idol case. The petitioner in that matter had argued the idol was mutilated during Mughal invasions and asked for restoration. During dismissal, the CJI’s remarks—quoted and circulated widely—were recorded as: “This is purely publicity interest litigation.... Go and ask the deity himself to do something. If you are saying that you are a strong devotee of Lord Vishnu, then you pray and do some meditation,” a line that catalyzed public outrage and online criticism. The CJI, days later, reiterated that he respects all faiths.

Context note: Reports consistently state the court termed the plea “publicity interest litigation” and pointed to ASI’s jurisdiction over Khajuraho (UNESCO site), which is why judicial directions to “rebuild and reinstall” were refused. The phraseology—“go and pray” or “ask the deity”—is what many devotees experienced as belittling.

Bar Council suspends lawyer who tried to hurl shoe towards CJI BR Gavai

Soon after the incident, the Bar Council of India (BCI) suspended advocate Rakesh Kishore with immediate effect through an interim order. According to reports, the suspension followed the on-record description of how he approached the dais, removed his shoe, and attempted to throw it toward the judge before being detained by security.

Witnesses said that while being escorted out, he shouted, “Sanatan ka apmaan nahi sahega Hindustan” (Hindustan will not tolerate insult of Sanatan Dharma). Despite the commotion, the CJI stayed steady and repeated his call for focus: “Don’t get distracted by all this. We are not distracted. These things do not affect me.”

Senior members of the bar also condemned the act. Advocate Rohit Pandey, former secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association, stated: “Today's incident is a very sad one. If a lawyer has committed or attempted to commit assault in a court, we strongly condemn it,” noting that, according to him, Kishore has been a member of the bar since 2011 and that “He attempted this based on the comment made by the CJI in the case of Lord Vishnu matter. We strongly condemn this, and if this incident is true, action should be taken.” In parallel, the Supreme Court’s security unit initiated an inquiry; Delhi Police—the primary security authority for the area—took custody on the spot and coordinated with court security.

Editorial view: The BCI’s swift action signals zero tolerance for any physical intimidation inside courts. Equally, the episode shows how words from the Bench—especially on religious sentiments—carry exceptional weight. For many Hindus, a judicial nudge that sounds like a taunt of Lord Vishnu devotion is not a technical aside; it feels like an affront to Sanatan. That is why restraint and sensitivity are not optional from the top—they are expected.

A Lawyer’s Fury: CJI Accused of Mocking Hindu Faith

The remarks of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai on Lord Vishnu’s idol case have not gone unnoticed, nor have they been forgotten. Voices of dissent have continued to rise, and this time, a strong statement came from Supreme Court advocate Deepika Sharma, who minced no words in expressing her outrage.

On her X handle, @DeepikaSharmaa_, she wrote:
“CJI B.R. Gavai’s loose tongue has tainted the fountain of the Indian Justice System: His vituperative, blasphemous and incendiary remark against Bhagwan Vishnu has shaken at the faith of the Hindu community in his capability to preside as the CJI. His ideological bias due to his commitments to the Ambedkarite philosophy led to him making insulting remarks against a devotee of Bhagwan Vishnu. Mocking the faith of crores of Hindus. His obstinacy in not acknowledging his fault and apologising to the Hindu masses, shifting the blame on social media shows lack of integrity. It is time he is impeached. What happened in court premises today happened because of his loose tongue and incendiary remarks.”

Her words echo the sentiments of countless Hindus who felt ridiculed when the Chief Justice dismissed a plea for restoring a beheaded idol of Lord Vishnu at Khajuraho with the sarcastic retort: “Go and ask the deity itself to do something now.” For a judge entrusted with safeguarding both law and justice, such remarks cut deeper than casual speech. They were heard as a direct slight against Sanatan Dharma and the faith of crores.

By invoking “Ambedkarite philosophy,” Sharma pointed towards the ideological undercurrent she believes influences Justice Gavai’s outlook. To her, this is not merely a legal misstep but a reflection of a bias that disrespects Hindu beliefs while being presented under the veil of judicial objectivity.

Her anger intensifies around the CJI’s refusal to apologise. Instead of acknowledging that his words wounded millions, Gavai chose to deflect criticism by saying his remarks were “misconstrued on social media.” Sharma views this as an attempt to escape responsibility, a move that further deepens mistrust in the judiciary’s neutrality.

The most striking part of her statement is the call for impeachment. In her assessment, the dignity of the CJI’s office is already compromised, and the breach cannot be repaired by excuses. To her and many like her, what unfolded in the courtroom—the shoe-hurling protest—was not an isolated outburst but the inevitable consequence of judicial arrogance.

At the heart of Sharma’s criticism is a vital question: how long can the judiciary continue to demand unquestioned respect while disregarding the sensitivities of India’s majority faith? A Chief Justice who mocks devotion, however unintentionally, risks reducing the Supreme Court’s moral authority. In a country where faith is inseparable from life, mocking God is not just an error of words—it is a wound on the soul of the people.