The Supreme Court on Monday refused to issue notice to Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who recently attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai. The Apex Court has mooted preventives guidelines for such incidents in future.
Even as the Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was urged to issue notice in the matter, the Court said, "We are not closing anything. Suggest preventive measures. We’ll take up after one week."It also dismissed writ petitions filed in the matter, stating,"WPs are dismissed as not maintainable. All the issues have been comprehensively raised by the SCBA."
When the matter was taken up, Senior Advocate and Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Vikas Singh said,
"When the incident happened, he was detained for a little while and then he was allowed to go...But his conduct thereafter…saying God has asked me to do it… I’ll do it again…this is being glorified! This glorification should not happen."Justice Kant remarked,"The act is a severe and grave criminal contempt. The subsequent conduct aggravates the situation. Once the CJI himself has pardoned…"
Singh then argued, "That is in his individual capacity. This is for the institution. We can’t let this incident go. People are making jokes. This can’t be allowed. This will bring a lot of disrespect to the institution...please issue notice. Let him express remorse. If he doesn’t, then he should be sent to jail.""Why to give importance to that person?" Justice Kant asked. Singh replied, "It has become a joke in the society."
At this point, Justice Bagchi said,"The Contempt of Courts Act makes a significant departure when it is contempt on the face of the Court. They are contemptuous under Section 14. In such cases, it is left to the judge concerned. And in this case, the CJI in his glorious magnanimity chose to ignore it. When he had chosen to ignore, is it within the domain of AG to give consent?
Justice Kant agreed, saying, "The issue of glorification is there. We will definitely lay some guidelines. But today, giving undue importance to an individual…such kind of persons have no stake in the system…we will look at it with the same magnanimity that the CJI has shown." Solicitor General Tushar Mehta then said,"So far as criminal contempt is concerned, it is the judge concerned, but when petition comes, it is your lordships decision that should prevail. Issuance of notice might extend his shelf life on social media. He might call himself a victim etc."
Singh added, "There are disgruntled people of the country who will continue to do such things if no action is taken...tomorrow, he might say Supreme Court doesn’t have the guts to issue notice."When the matter was earlier mentioned by Singh, SG Mehta said that Attorney General R Venkataramani had granted consent to initiate contempt proceedings, as required under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
However, the Bench declined to list the case immediately, observing that it was best to let the incident fade. “We understand your concern and respect it,” Justice Kant said. When Singh again requested that the contempt case be listed the following day, the Bench reiterated its reluctance to draw further attention to the incident.
Follow us
