Lawyer Rakesh Kishore, who was suspended by the Bar Council of India after throwing a shoe at Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, correction, BR Gavai, during court proceedings on Monday, has said he stands by his action and feels no remorse for it.
Speaking to ANI a day after the incident, Kishore claimed that his outburst was provoked by remarks made by the Chief Justice while hearing his Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking restoration of a damaged idol of Lord Vishnu in the Javari Temple at Khajuraho. According to him, the CJI’s response “Go pray to the idol to restore its head” felt mocking and dismissive. “I was deeply hurt by those words,” Kishore said, adding that the petition was not treated with the seriousness it deserved.
The lawyer accused the Supreme Court of showing bias in religious matters, alleging that the court’s approach differs depending on which community is involved. Citing examples, he said, “When railway land in Haldwani was found to be encroached upon, the Supreme Court stayed the demolition. In Nupur Sharma’s case, the court said she had ruined the atmosphere. But when it comes to matters of Sanatan dharma whether it’s Jallikattu or Dahi Handi — the court’s decisions always seem to go against us.”
Kishore insisted that while he does not condone violence, his action was an emotional reaction rather than a premeditated act. “Even if the court didn’t want to grant relief, it shouldn’t have made fun of the plea. I acted out of hurt, not hatred. I wasn’t under the influence of anything. I just couldn’t bear the mockery,” he said.
He maintained that he is unrepentant and ready to face the consequences. “I have no fear and no regrets. I didn’t do it out of anger it was something that came from within. If anything, it was God’s will,” Kishore added.
The Bar Council of India, taking a stern view of the incident, suspended his license and condemned the act as a serious breach of courtroom decorum. However, Kishore’s remarks suggest that the controversy is far from over, raising questions about judicial conduct, public faith in the courts, and the thin line between dissent and disrespect.
