Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who threw shoe at CJI Gavai, barred from practicing in SC
The lawyer who threw his shoe at Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai has ben expelled by the Supreme Court Bar Association. The incident took place on October 6, during the hearing of a case. Mid-argument, the lawyer took off his shoe and hurled it at the Chief Justice. The incident was reportedly sparked by an earlier judgment of the CJI, in a case regarding installation of statues of Lord VIshnu in Khajuraho.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on Thursday terminated the temporary membership of Rakesh Kishore, who threw a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI), BR Gavai. The lawyer threw the shoe at the CJI during a hearing on October 6.
Order expelling advocate immediately effective
According to a report in Live Law, the order expelling advocate Kishore from the bar was immediately effective. The 71-year-old advocate reportedly removed his shoes during a court hearing, and tried to throw it at the Chief Justice of India.
The incident was clearly shocking and found mention in several quarters. Even PM Narendra Modi condemned the attack. He also spoke to the Chief Justice after the incident and praised him for his calm response. According to reports, after the lawyer threw the shoes at him, Gavai did not react with anger. He continued to remain calm and asked the other lawyers in court to continue with the proceedings. He completed the hearing in the case.
Justice Gavai said, "We do not get affected by such things".
Meanwhile, the lawyer, Rakesh Kishore who was detained immediately after throwing the shoe at the CJI, was heard shouting, "Sanatan ka apman nahi sahenge" (We will not tolerate insult to Sanatan).
The attack reportedly took place due to some old comments the Chief Justice of India had made, while hearing a case related to reconstruction and reinstallation of a seven-foot idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari Temple, in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh. The court had turned down the petition for installation of the idols and termed the case as a "publicity interest litigation."