Context: A shocking incident at the Supreme Court
The incident involving a lawyer allegedly throwing his shoes at Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai has sparked a broader debate about courtroom conduct in India. While Prime Minister Narendra Modi condemned the act and praised the CJI’s composure, legal commentators have weighed in on the role of courtroom rhetoric and how it can provoke extreme reactions. The case against Rakesh Kishore, who faces suspension from practice, has thrust the broader question of judicial speech into the spotlight.
Judicial restraint versus aggressive advocacy
Markandey Katju, a former Supreme Court judge turned columnist, argued that while the act of shoe-throwing must be condemned, abuse or provocative remarks from judges themselves can invite such responses. He cited cases where he felt judges spoke excessively in court and contrasted those moments with his recollection of a British courtroom, where silence and measured questioning created a calm atmosphere. He referenced remarks made by Justice Gavai during a hearing about restoring a damaged Vishnu idol in Khajuraho, noting that such comments can be seen as provoking or derailing civil discourse.
Katju’s critique: speaking less, listening more
In Katju’s view, the proper role of a judge is to listen and decide, not to sermonize from the bench. He invoked an analogy from Sir Francis Bacon, suggesting that a judge who talks too much resembles an ill-tuned cymbal. He pointed to a courtroom atmosphere characterized by pin-drop silence, where lawyers present arguments in a low, restrained voice and the judge intervenes only to clarify a point. This description stands in stark contrast to recent episodes where judges, he says, have engaged in prolonged questioning or remarks that echo beyond the bench.
The Supreme Court incident and public reactions
The bench led by Justice Gavai had dismissed a plea seeking the reconstruction of a seven-foot Vishnu idol in the UNESCO World Heritage Khajuraho complex. The CJI reportedly told the petitioner to appeal directly to the deity and engage in personal devotion rather than pursuing a public-interest litigation strategy. The incident, including the shoe-attack, prompted quick statements from political leadership and heightened scrutiny of courtroom decorum in high-stakes disputes.
Security, decorum, and the path forward
On the day of the incident, security personnel and court officials managed the disruption, and the CJI urged that the proceedings continue with calm. The Bar Council of India promptly suspended the accused lawyer pending investigation. This sequence has prompted observers to call for clearer norms on courtroom behavior, both for advocates and for judges, to prevent the normalization of verbal or physical provocations in court.
What this means for judges’ conduct
Proponents of judicial restraint argue that measured remarks help maintain legitimacy, protect dissenting voices, and uphold public confidence in the judicial process. Critics, however, warn against an overly rigid model that could stifle necessary scrutiny or curb robust advocacy. The balance is delicate: judges must ask pertinent questions, clarify legal points, and ensure fair hearings, while avoiding tones or comments that could inflame passions or invite disruptive actions from litigants.
Practical takeaways for courts
– Emphasize quiet, focused hearings with formal decorum.
– Train judges and lawyers on speech boundaries for courtroom exchanges.
– Encourage written submissions to reduce on-the-record hyperbole or sarcasm.
– Foster a culture where dignity is preserved, even in contentious cases.
– Ensure swift but fair disciplinary action when decorum is breached, to deter repetition.
Bottom line
The incident against Justice Gavai has reignited discussions about courtroom etiquette and the responsibility of all parties to maintain a respectful, productive forum for justice. While condemning the act of throwing a shoe, observers like Katju remind us that restraint on both sides can help courts function more effectively and reduce the likelihood of future provocations.
