SC won't initiate contempt against lawyer over shoe throwing incident

SC won't initiate contempt against lawyer over shoe throwing incident

 


Although the Supreme Court said on Monday that throwing a shoe at a SC judge in court is criminal contempt in the face of the court, it was reluctant to file a contempt case against advocate Rakesh Kishore, who committed the act against CJI BR Gavai, stating that the judge who witnessed the attempted assault could punish the offender on his own account.

Vikas Singh, the senior attorney and head of the SC Bar Association, has repeatedly asked a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi to consider the association's motion for the start of contempt proceedings against Kishore.

His subsequent actions are even more disdainful since, rather than expressing regret, he boasted that he would repeat the action and that it was God's will.

Since no God would issue such a demand, this is an affront to God," Singh stated.


According to Justices Kant and Bagchi, the only person with the authority to start contempt proceedings in a case under the Contempt of Court Act of 1971 is the judge who is the target of an attempt or act of contempt in front of the court.

"The counsel committed a serious and grave criminal contempt of court with his actions. His subsequent actions make his crime worse.

However, there won't be much we can do once the CJI has generously forgiven him. In a case involving criminal contempt in the face of the court, we also don't believe the attorney general can accede to the start of contempt proceedings," the bench stated.

Justice Kant said that Kishore's plan to obtain low-cost social media attention would be the only benefit of starting contempt proceedings against him.

The bench declared that "he should be treated with the contempt he deserves for the abominable action," but it also stated that it was prepared to examine the most significant matter at hand, which is the issuance of a John Doe order prohibiting social media from exalting such acts.

In addition to trying to establish norms for media, particularly social media, on reporting such occurrences, the bench stated that it will keep the bigger issue pending.