The courtroom, traditionally a sanctuary of decorum and reason, has in recent years become a stage for unsettling hostility. The recent attempt by 72-year-old Advocate Rakesh Kishore to disrupt proceedings before Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai is not just a personal lapse—it is a reflection of a deeper decay in public respect for the judiciary. His suspension and potential contempt prosecution mark one more instance in India’s uneasy history of threats, intimidation, and violence against judges.
The Story
The incident unfolded when Rakesh Kishore, an unfamiliar face in legal circles, created chaos during a Supreme Court hearing, invoking the defence of Sanatana Dharma. His membership at the Bar has since been suspended, and criminal contempt proceedings are being sought against him.
Investigations revealed that Kishore—ailing, elderly, and largely unknown to the legal fraternity—had little courtroom experience. Yet his actions reveal how emotional populism, cloaked in ideological justification, can manifest even in spaces meant to uphold constitutional reason.
A Pattern of Threats and Violence
India’s judiciary has a long, uneasy history with acts of intimidation—ranging from verbal abuse to actual violence.
-
In 2003, a judge in Tamil Nadu was attacked with a knife inside a courtroom.
-
In 2007, a trial court judge in Uttar Pradesh was shot dead while presiding over a hearing.
-
More recently, judges have faced online harassment, defamation campaigns, and threats on social media, especially after verdicts in politically or communally sensitive cases.
The 2021 death of Judge Uttam Anand in Jharkhand—run over under mysterious circumstances while probing high-profile cases—sparked outrage and prompted calls for better judicial protection mechanisms.
Such incidents, though rare, erode the authority of the courts and blur the line between constitutional dissent and anarchy. When judges become targets of ideology-driven aggression, the very principle of an independent judiciary—enshrined in Article 50 of the Constitution—is under siege.
Contempt of Court: Civil and Criminal Dimensions
The Indian legal system gives courts special powers to preserve their authority and ensure justice is not obstructed. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, distinguishes between two kinds:
-
Civil Contempt (Section 2(b)) — Willful disobedience of a court order or undertaking.
Example: Refusal to comply with a stay order or injunction. -
Criminal Contempt (Section 2(c)) — Any act that scandalises or lowers the authority of the court, prejudices judicial proceedings, or obstructs the administration of justice.
Example: Physical attack on a judge or public statements that impugn judicial integrity.
In Mr. Kishore’s case, his outburst in open court falls squarely within criminal contempt. The Attorney General’s consent has been sought to initiate proceedings—underlining that the judiciary treats physical intimidation not as dissent, but as an assault on constitutional order itself.
The Fine Balance: Free Speech vs. Judicial Dignity
India’s courts have often walked a tightrope between protecting free expression and defending institutional dignity.
-
In E.M.S. Namboodiripad v. T.N. Nambiar (1970), the Supreme Court held that while criticism of the judiciary is permitted, imputing motives or inciting disrespect crosses into contempt.
-
In Prashant Bhushan (2020), the Court reiterated that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) does not include the right to “scandalise the court.”
Criticism, when rooted in reason, enriches democracy. But contempt laws exist precisely because unchecked aggression—verbal, digital, or physical—can delegitimise the judiciary and shake public confidence in justice itself.
Why It Matters
The CJI incident raises uncomfortable questions:
-
Has public discourse become too polarised for rational disagreement?
-
Are ideological passions eroding professional ethics, even in the legal community?
-
Do we need stronger judicial security protocols and psychological assessments in Bar enrolments?
As the judiciary becomes a frequent target of social and political contestation, it must also introspect. Public faith in justice stems not from fear of contempt, but from transparency, humility, and impartiality. Yet, that very faith collapses when a judge’s life or dignity is endangered.
Lessons from History
In most democracies, assaults on judges are treated as attacks on the Constitution itself.
-
The U.S. Judicial Security and Privacy Act (2022) was enacted after threats to federal judges surged by 400%.
-
The U.K. Judiciary Safety Programme ensures 24×7 monitoring of threats to judges online and offline.
India, too, must evolve from reactive outrage to institutionalised judicial protection—not just physical security but digital and reputational safeguards.
The Way Forward
-
Judicial Protection Authority: Establish a statutory body under the Ministry of Law for assessing and mitigating risks to judges and court staff.
-
Digital Harassment Monitoring: Track and counter misinformation or coordinated hate campaigns targeting verdicts or judges.
-
Bar Council Reform: Strengthen screening and mental health assessments during Bar registration and renewal.
-
Civic Education: Reinforce public understanding that critique of judgments is democratic—but intimidation of judges is treasonous to justice.
Conclusion
The image of a man storming toward the Chief Justice of India is more than an alarming breach of courtroom decorum; it is a moral commentary on the decay of civic restraint. The law can punish contempt, but it cannot legislate respect. That must come from within a society that still believes in dialogue over disruption.
Credit: Reporting inputs adapted from The Hindu.
