The incident in which a Supreme Court advocate threw a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai during court proceedings has shocked the nation and sparked a wide debate about judicial independence, public trust, and civil discourse. This incident came after the CJI's sharp criticism on social media over his remark over Lord Vishnu's idol. Refusing to entertain a public interest litigation seeking judicial intervention for the reconstruction of a 7-foot idol of Lord Vishnu at Khajuraho Temple, the Chief Justice reportedly said, “Go and ask the deity himself to do something."
The advocate's action, motivated by discontent with the CJI's remarks regarding the idol, exposes the deeper rifts in India's democracy, the judicial system's relationship to society, and the religious sensitivities that push people to extremes. In addition to being an impetuous protest, the lawyer's action was motivated by dissatisfaction with what he saw as judicial insensitivity. Regardless of one's perspective, tossing a sneaker at the highest court chair creates a risky precedent and jeopardizes the security and honour of judicial institutions.
The incident led to protests and condemnations across India, including South Goa. Lawyers, civil rights groups, and political leaders in various States stood up in condemnation. While some viewed it as a sign of growing public disillusionment over the functioning of the judiciary — especially with delays in justice, a sense of elitism, and the handling of sensitive cases—it also highlighted a fragile line between dissent and disorder.
Importantly, regardless of motive, such acts damage the decorum that generally defines judicial proceedings. The judiciary is a temple of justice, and its sanctity must be upheld at all times; any violence against judges threatens the stability of the judicial system. The dignity of the judiciary is essential to the rule of law, and such acts lead to a weakening of public trust and disrespect.
On the flip side, the incident has also put the spotlight back on the rising frustrations in parts of society due to judicial delays and biases. Vast sections of people across India have been raising concerns over the accessibility and responsiveness of courts. Many argue that reforms are urgently needed to simplify procedures, increase transparency, and make justice more accessible. However, such dissatisfaction cannot be conveyed through violence because there are risks of creating chaos and achieving nothing.
From a broader perspective, this assault raises vital questions about the state of India’s democracy. Although the right to dissent is protected by the Constitution, it must be exercised within the framework of law and civility. Violence or threats against judicial figures undermine the independence of the judiciary, which is a cornerstone of democracy. The judiciary needs protection from both external threats and internal frustrations that may lead to such actions.
The judiciary should reflect on its shortcomings and respect sensitivities, particularly on religious issues. We have seen religious intolerance and related violence across States. Also, legal institutions ought to open up channels for peaceful dissent and address grievances effectively. There is also a need to improve security measures to protect judicial personnel.
The shoe-throwing incident at CJI Gavai is reflective of the growing tensions within the society and its institutions. While frustration against the judicial system is understandable, violence is neither justified nor helpful. This incident calls for renewed efforts to reform the system, understand public sentiment, and at the same time, maintain the dignity of judicial processes. The biggest challenge would be to channel discontent into constructive pathways that strengthen democracy rather than erode its foundations.
