Key Highlights:
- Advocate Rakesh Kishore, 71, was immediately suspended by the Bar Council of India following his attempt to attack Chief Justice BR Gavai over religious remarks made during a Khajuraho temple case hearing
- The Supreme Court security breach occurred despite existing protocols, with security personnel successfully preventing the shoe from reaching the judicial bench during ongoing court proceedings
- Over 1,852 contempt cases are currently pending before the Supreme Court as of March 2025, highlighting the broader challenges facing India’s judicial system in maintaining institutional authority
Opening Overview
The shocking Supreme Court security breach on October 6, 2025, marked a dark chapter in Indian judicial history when senior advocate Rakesh Kishore attempted to throw his shoe at Chief Justice BR Gavai during regular court proceedings. This brazen act of disrespect occurred in Court No. 1 of the Supreme Court at approximately 11:35 AM, stunning legal observers and security personnel alike. The Supreme Court security breach stemmed from Kishore’s anger over the Chief Justice’s previous remarks during a Khajuraho temple case, where Gavai had suggested a petitioner “go and ask the deity himself” regarding a damaged Vishnu idol.
The 71-year-old advocate removed his sports shoes and attempted to hurl them toward the Chief Justice’s bench while shouting “Sanatan ka apman nahi sahenge” (will not tolerate insults to Sanatan Dharma). Security personnel successfully intercepted the attack, preventing any physical harm to the judicial officers, though the Supreme Court security breach sent shockwaves through India’s legal fraternity. Chief Justice Gavai maintained his composure throughout the ordeal, requesting lawyers to continue their arguments and demonstrating remarkable judicial restraint by asking the registry not to file any formal charges against his attacker.
This Supreme Court security breach represents more than an isolated incident of courtroom misconduct; it reflects deeper societal tensions surrounding religious sensitivities and social media misinformation campaigns targeting judicial decisions. The attack has prompted urgent discussions about enhancing security protocols at India’s highest court while preserving the accessibility that defines democratic judicial institutions.
Immediate Response and Legal Consequences
The Bar Council of India responded swiftly to the Supreme Court security breach, suspending advocate Rakesh Kishore with immediate effect under interim orders issued the same day. The suspension bars Kishore from “appearing, acting, pleading, or practising in any court, tribunal, or authority in India” during the disciplinary proceedings, effectively ending his legal career pending further investigation. BCI officials emphasized that Kishore’s conduct violated the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette, undermining the dignity of the court system.
- Advocate Subhash Chandran K R has sought Attorney General consent under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Kishorenewindianexpress+1
- The contempt petition describes Kishore’s actions as “gross interference with the administration of justice” and a deliberate attempt to undermine Supreme Court dignity
Legal experts have identified the Supreme Court security breach as constituting criminal contempt of court, which carries penalties of up to six months imprisonment and fines up to Rs. 2,000. Former Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi characterized the incident as “the grossest form of criminal contempt as defined by law,” emphasizing that such attacks on judicial authority warrant exemplary punishment. However, Chief Justice Gavai’s decision not to pursue formal charges reflects what legal observers describe as judicial maturity and institutional wisdom.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi condemned the Supreme Court security breach as “utterly condemnable,” stating that there is “no place for such reprehensible acts in our society” and that the assault had “angered every Indian”. Opposition leaders including West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee described the incident as “most outrageous” and “an assault on the Constitution of India”. Meanwhile, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta specifically attributed the attack to “misinformation on social media”.
Historical Context and Security Concerns
The Supreme Court security breach represents a rare but recurring challenge in Indian judicial history, with similar incidents occurring approximately every two decades according to legal observers. Former Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi recalled previous security incidents, including an attempted knife attack on a Supreme Court judge 15-16 years ago, highlighting the persistent vulnerabilities facing India’s apex court. These isolated incidents underscore the delicate balance between maintaining judicial accessibility and ensuring adequate security for constitutional institutions.
- Historical precedent shows that violent attacks on Supreme Court judges occur approximately once every 20 years, indicating systemic security gaps
- The current incident represents the gravest breach of judicial security in independent India’s history according to legal analysts
The current Supreme Court security breach occurred amid a broader crisis of judicial confidence, with India’s courts facing unprecedented case backlogs and institutional challenges. As of January 2025, the Supreme Court recorded 82,445 pending cases, representing a 2,637-case increase from the previous year and highlighting the mounting pressure on judicial institutions. This massive caseload, combined with social media-driven misinformation campaigns targeting judicial decisions, creates a volatile environment where individual judges face increased personal risks.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising characterized the Supreme Court security breach as a “blatant casteist attack on the Supreme Court of India,” noting that Chief Justice Gavai belongs to the Dalit community. The attack has been interpreted by several commentators as reflecting deeper caste-based prejudices and majoritarian pressure against constitutional institutions. Legal experts warn that such incidents could embolden other disgruntled litigants or ideologically motivated individuals to target judicial officers.
Systemic Implications for India’s Judiciary
The Supreme Court security breach has exposed fundamental vulnerabilities in India’s judicial security infrastructure, prompting calls for comprehensive reforms to protect constitutional institutions from ideological attacks. Several legal experts emphasized that the incident “strikes at the very foundation of the judiciary” and represents an attack on “the third pillar of democracy” rather than merely targeting an individual judge. This perspective underscores how the Supreme Court security breach threatens the institutional integrity of India’s constitutional framework.
- The incident has triggered discussions about implementing stricter access controls and enhanced screening procedures for court premises
- Legal advocates are demanding united press statements from all Supreme Court judges condemning ideological attacks
The role of social media misinformation in precipitating the Supreme Court security breach has become a critical concern for judicial administrators and legal experts. Mission Ambedkar founder has separately sought Attorney General consent to initiate contempt proceedings against religious orator Aniruddhacharya and YouTuber Ajeet Bharti for allegedly inciting the attack on the Chief Justice. This represents a new category of threat to judicial independence, where individual decisions are weaponized through selective editing and inflammatory commentary.
The broader implications of this Supreme Court security breach extend beyond individual accountability to encompass systemic reforms necessary for protecting India’s constitutional framework. Chief Justice Gavai is scheduled to retire next month and remains under high-security cover provided by Delhi police following the incident. The attack serves as a stark reminder that democratic institutions require active protection from ideological extremism and coordinated misinformation campaigns targeting judicial independence.
Final Assessment
The Supreme Court security breach of October 6, 2025, represents a watershed moment for India’s judicial system, exposing critical vulnerabilities while highlighting the resilience of constitutional institutions under pressure. Advocate Rakesh Kishore’s unprecedented attack on Chief Justice BR Gavai has triggered a comprehensive examination of court security protocols, professional legal standards, and the growing influence of social media misinformation on judicial proceedings. The swift response from the Bar Council of India, nationwide condemnation from political leaders, and ongoing contempt proceedings demonstrate the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining institutional dignity despite ideological attacks.
The broader implications of this Supreme Court security breach extend beyond individual accountability to encompass systemic reforms necessary for protecting India’s constitutional framework. With massive case backlogs creating institutional pressure and rising social media-driven attacks on judicial decisions, the judiciary faces unprecedented challenges in maintaining authority while preserving accessibility. Chief Justice Gavai’s measured response, choosing not to pursue formal charges while allowing professional disciplinary action to proceed, exemplifies the judicial restraint and institutional wisdom required during periods of constitutional crisis.
This Supreme Court security breach ultimately serves as a stark reminder that democratic institutions require active protection from ideological extremism and coordinated misinformation campaigns. The unanimous condemnation from legal professionals, political leaders, and civil society organizations demonstrates that attacks on judicial independence remain unacceptable regardless of political or religious motivations, reinforcing the fundamental principle that courts of law exist to interpret constitutional provisions rather than propagate religious or political ideologies.
