Why Did CJI Gavai Decline Action on Object-Throwing Incident?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
In a surprising turn of events, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai decided against taking action against a man who attempted to disrupt court proceedings by throwing an object. This incident has raised important discussions regarding respect for the judiciary and the role of the legal profession in upholding its dignity.
Key Takeaways
- CJI Gavai declined action against the individual involved.
- The incident was a serious disruption in the Supreme Court.
- The SCAORA expressed strong disapproval of the act.
- Respect for the judiciary is essential in maintaining public faith.
- Freedom of speech must be exercised with responsibility.
New Delhi, Oct 6 (NationPress) Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai made a decision on Monday that no disciplinary measures would be taken against an individual clad in a lawyer's robe, who allegedly attempted to disrupt the Supreme Court proceedings earlier that day by trying to throw an object at the Bench led by CJI Gavai.
The individual reportedly approached the dais and attempted to remove his shoe, but was swiftly intervened by security personnel who escorted him out of the courtroom.
As he was taken away, he was heard chanting slogans related to Sanatan Dharma.
The court proceedings faced a brief interruption, yet CJI Gavai maintained his composure and continued without any break.
“Do not let this distract you. We remain focused. Such incidents do not impact me,” he stated.
Subsequently, sources revealed that CJI Gavai had advised that the situation should be disregarded and no further action should be initiated against the individual involved.
In the meantime, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) passed a resolution expressing “deep anguish and disapproval” regarding the alleged actions of the purported advocate who reportedly made “an unwarranted and intemperate gesture” directed at undermining the CJI Gavai-led Bench's dignity.
The SCAORA characterized the conduct as “unbecoming of a member of the Bar,” asserting that it undermines the essential mutual respect that upholds the relationship between the Bench and the Bar.
“This behavior contradicts the dignity of the legal profession and violates the constitutional principles of decorum, discipline, and institutional integrity,” the resolution indicated.
It further emphasized that any attempt to malign or personalize actions against sitting judges of the Supreme Court represents “a direct assault on judicial independence and erodes public confidence in the justice system.”
The bar body urged the apex court to take suo motu cognizance of the incident and initiate suitable contempt proceedings.
SCAORA described the act as “a calculated attempt to scandalize the authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and diminish its dignity before the public”.
“Such actions remind us that the freedom of speech, while essential, carries an obligation for restraint—especially for members of the legal profession who serve as officers of the Court,” the resolution concluded.
Point of View
I emphasize that the judiciary's independence is vital for democracy. The decision of CJI Gavai to overlook the incident reflects a commitment to maintaining the dignity of the court. However, the bar's response highlights the need for accountability within the legal profession. Upholding respect for the judiciary must remain paramount.
NationPress
06/10/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What incident occurred in the Supreme Court on October 6?
A man dressed in a lawyer's robe attempted to throw an object at the CJI Gavai-led Bench during proceedings but was swiftly removed by security.
What was CJI Gavai's response to the incident?
CJI Gavai decided that no action would be taken against the individual and emphasized that such distractions should not affect court proceedings.
What was the reaction from the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association?
The SCAORA expressed deep disapproval of the incident, describing it as an unwarranted act that undermines the dignity of the judiciary.
What does the SCAORA resolution imply about the legal profession?
The resolution indicates that actions undermining the judiciary are unacceptable and threaten the foundational respect necessary for the legal profession.
What further actions did the SCAORA call for?
The SCAORA urged the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognizance of the incident and initiate contempt proceedings.
