Muppu Sai Kumar
On Monday, October 6, as a Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai was hearing a case in the Supreme Court, an advocate present there but not involved in the ongoing hearings threw his shoe at the CJI.
As per news reports, the shoe did not land on Justice Gavai or on his desk, and the advocate, named Rakesh Kishore, reportedly said maine Gavai saab ki taraf phenka (I threw it at Justice Gavai). As he was being taken out by the police, he also reportedly said that insulting sanatan dharma would not be accepted.
Though the security personnel detained him, Justice Gavai directed that no case be filed against the advocate and continued with the court proceedings without interruption.
The incident seems to be related to a recent hearing in the Supreme Court of a public interest litigation seeking the restoration of the damaged part of a seven-foot idol of a deity at the Khajuraho Javari temple in Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner, Rakesh Dalal, had argued that the idol was damaged during Mughal invasions and sought its restoration.
The Supreme Court bench including Chief Justice Gavai, however, ruled that the temple comes under the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), and that the Court could not intervene without ASI’s authorisation. The bench advised the petitioner, “Go and pray to your deity — Lord Shiva is worshipped in many forms, including the great Shivlinga at Javari.”
The oral comments of the bench were distorted on social media, leading to false claims that the Court had insulted sanatan dharma. Such misrepresentation of judicial remarks has fuelled misinformation and communal tension online. Two days later, Justice Gavai clarified that he did not criticise any religion or deity. On multiple occasions, he has reiterated his respect for all faiths.
How does one make sense of what happened? Let’s look at the incident in a historical context.
In many landmark cases, the judiciary has carefully balanced religious sentiments and constitutional principles. For example, former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi went against very vocal religious sentiments against allowing menstruating women into Sabarimala temple, but faced no personal attacks.
The contrast with the present case suggests that caste-based prejudice may be influencing reactions toward Justice Gavai, who is a Dalit.
* * *