Supreme Court Refuses Contempt Action For Shoe Thrown At Chief Justice

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to initiate contempt action against a lawyer who had attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai but said it will consider laying down guidelines to prevent such incidents.

Noting that the CJI himself had refused to proceed against 71-year-old Rakesh Kishore, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said shouting slogans in court and hurling shoes are clear cases of contempt of court but it all depends on the judge concerned under the law whether to proceed or not.

"Issuing contempt notice will only give undue importance to the lawyer who had hurled shoe at the CJI and would increase the shelf life of the incident," the bench said, adding the incident should be allowed to die its own natural death.

The bench was hearing a plea of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) seeking contempt action against advocate Kishore, who attempted to hurl the shoe towards the CJI on October 6 during court proceedings.

Observing that though the conduct of Kishore "amounted to serious and grave criminal contempt which cannot be pardoned", Justice Kant asked whether the court should exercise its jurisdiction when the CJI has already shown leniency in pursuing the matter.

"But once the CJI has pardoned, should we go into this. Although, we are inclined to examine other aspects like the John Doe order and preventive measures," Justice Kant said.

A John Doe order is a type of legal order passed by a court that allows a person or entity to take action against an unknown party or parties.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the SCBA, contended that the CJI's pardon was in his "individual capacity" and could not bind the institution and its decisions.

"The CJI took the decision in his individual capacity and we being integral part of this institution can't let this incident go. People are making jokes about this incident and glorifying it. Please issue notice to him and if he does not express any remorse, send him to jail from here only," Singh submitted.

He said that since the CJI decided to let him go has emboldened him and if he had been sent to jail on the same day of the attack the glorification of the incident could have stopped.

The court then said it will consider laying down guidelines to prevent such incidents.

Justice Bagchi, while referring to the Contempt of Court Act, asked whether contempt proceedings can be initiated by another bench once the presiding judge who faced the act has chosen not to do so.

"Throwing of a shoe or shouting slogans in court are contemptuous acts on the face of it under section 14(of contempt of court Act). In such cases, it is left to the judge concerned to decide whether to initiate contempt. The CJI in his gracious magnanimity chose to ignore. Now, is it within the domain of another bench or even the Attorney General to give consent for contempt? Please see section 15," Justice Bagchi said.

Singh said that while the CJI had initially decided not to press charges, Kishore later gave media interviews boasting about his act and vowing to repeat it.

Justice Kant replied that since the CJI had opted not to proceed under section 14 of the Act, it may not be open to any other authority to revive the issue.

"That's the end of contempt on the face of the court," he said, adding any instant punitive measure on the day of the incident "might have flared up irresponsible people" and that the Court should now focus on preventive steps.

Singh argued that the subsequent conduct of Kishore such as his public statements and glorification of the act constituted a fresh offence.

Justice Kant agreed that glorification of the act raised a "serious concern" and said the Court would examine with the help of SCBA what preventive guidelines could be framed.

"With your suggestions, we would like to lay down guidelines. But giving undue importance to one individual will rather glorify him," he observed.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who supported the SCBA's concern, however said that any action could reignite the controversy.

"His shelf life in social media is for a few more days. He is not such a big man but any action against him will make him one. With issuance of notice, the shelf life might be extended. He might start playing a victim card," Mehta said.

Singh said if the court does not take any action then "tomorrow he may say SC did not have guts to take action." Justice Kant said that in his over two-decade old career in judiciary and Justice Bagchi with a career of over 15-16 years are thick-skinned and not bothered what these people say.

The bench while adjourning the matter for next Monday asked Mehta to collate details of incidents like shoe attacks in different courts.

On October 16, the top court said the right to free speech and expression cannot be exercised at the cost of others' dignity and integrity as it cautioned about the dangers of "unregulated" social media, observing that incidents like the recent incident in the top court are nothing but "money-spinning ventures".

On October 6, Kishore attempted to hurl a shoe towards the CJI in his courtroom which prompted the Bar Council of India to suspend his license with immediate effect.

The CJI, who remained unfazed during and after the unprecedented incident during the court proceedings, asked the court officials and the security personnel present inside the courtroom to "just ignore" it and to let off the errant lawyer with a warning.

The incident had sparked widespread condemnation. Prime Minister Narendra Modi while condemning the incident also spoke to the CJI.

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)