NEW DELHI, Oct 6: A dramatic incident unfolded in the Supreme Court on Monday when a lawyer allegedly attempted to hurl a shoe toward Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai during courtroom proceedings. The situation occurred while a bench headed by the CJI was hearing the mentioning of cases by advocates, momentarily disrupting the decorum of the court.
According to eyewitnesses, the lawyer suddenly approached the dais where the judges were seated, removed his shoe, and attempted to throw it towards the Chief Justice. However, alert security personnel stationed inside the courtroom reacted swiftly, intervening before the shoe could be thrown and preventing any harm. The lawyer was immediately restrained and escorted out of the courtroom by security officials.
As he was being taken away, the lawyer shouted slogans, including, “Sanatan ka apman nahi sahenge” (“We will not tolerate the insult of Sanatan Dharma”), though it remains unclear what provoked the outburst.
Despite the commotion, Chief Justice Gavai remained composed and continued with the proceedings. He urged the advocates present not to be distracted by the incident, remarking calmly, “Don’t get distracted by all this. We are not distracted. These things do not affect me.” His measured response drew appreciation from lawyers present in the courtroom for maintaining the dignity and continuity of the court’s work.
The Supreme Court’s security wing has launched a formal inquiry into the incident to ascertain the identity, background, and motive of the lawyer involved. Officials are also reviewing security protocols inside the courtroom to prevent such occurrences in the future.
The rare breach of courtroom decorum has sparked widespread discussion in legal circles, with many terming it a disturbing act of protest within the highest judicial forum of the country. While isolated incidents of disruption have occurred in the past, attempts to target members of the judiciary physically are exceedingly uncommon. Authorities are expected to take strict action once the inquiry establishes the facts and motives behind the act.