New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to initiate contempt action against a lawyer who had attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai but said it will consider laying down guidelines to prevent such incidents.
Noting that the CJI himself had refused to proceed against 71-year-old Rakesh Kishore, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said shouting slogans in court and hurling shoes are clear cases of contempt of court but it all depends on the judge concerned under the law whether to proceed or not.
“Issuing contempt notice will only give undue importance to the lawyer who had hurled shoe at the CJI and would increase the shelf life of the incident,” the bench said, adding the incident should be allowed to die its own natural death. The bench was hearing a plea of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) seeking contempt action against advocate Kishore, who attempted to hurl the shoe towards the CJI on October 6 during court proceedings.
Observing that though the conduct of Kishore “amounted to serious and grave criminal contempt which cannot be pardoned”, Justice Kant asked whether the court should exercise its jurisdiction when the CJI has already shown leniency in pursuing the matter.
“But once the CJI has pardoned, should we go into this. Although, we are inclined to examine other aspects like the John Doe order and preventive measures,” Justice Kant said.
A John Doe order is a type of legal order passed by a court that allows a person or entity to take action against an unknown party or parties.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the SCBA, contended that the CJI’s pardon was in his “individual capacity” and could not bind the institution and its decisions.
“The CJI took the decision in his individual capacity and we being integral part of this institution can’t let this incident go. People are making jokes about this incident and glorifying it. Please issue notice to him and if he does not express any remorse, send him to jail from here only,” Singh submitted.
He said that since the CJI decided to let him go has emboldened him and if he had been sent to jail on the same day of the attack the glorification of the incident could have stopped.
The court then said it will consider laying down guidelines to prevent such incidents.
Justice Bagchi, while referring to the Contempt of Court Act, asked whether contempt proceedings can be initiated by another bench once the presiding judge who faced the act has chosen not to do so.
“Throwing of a shoe or shouting slogans in court are contemptuous acts on the face of it under section 14(of contempt of court Act). In such cases, it is left to the judge concerned to decide whether to initiate contempt. The CJI in his gracious magnanimity chose to ignore. Now, is it within the domain of another bench or even the Attorney General to give consent for contempt? Please see section 15,” Justice Bagchi said.