SC declines to initiate criminal contempt against lawyer who hurled shoe at CJI

New Delhi [India], October 27 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Monday declined to start criminal contempt of court proceedings against 71-year-old lawyer Rakesh Kishore, who recently attempted to attack the Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai, by hurling a shoe at the CJI-led bench on October 6.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi reasoned that, when the Chief Justice of India himself has let go of this incident, initiating action against the attacker would only further glorify him.
"This (initiating action) will rather lead to his (Rakesh Kishore's) glorifying more. Such kind of persons have no stake in the system. Giving any undue importance to person will only... Let us, the bar and the bench both should think of the larger issue of issuing guidelines in this regard", Justice Surya Kant said.
The Court, however, agreed to consider issuing guidelines regarding social media publications and the glorification of the shoe-hurling incident and other such contemptuous acts that bring disrepute to the Supreme Court of India.

The top court was hearing a plea filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) seeking initiation of criminal contempt of court proceedings against lawyer Rakesh Kishore, who attempted to hurl a shoe at the CJI.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate and SCBA President Vikas Singh, appearing for SCBA vehemently urged the Court to order action against Kishore.
Singh argued that after the CJI chose to let him go, we thought that the matter had attained quietus. However, the way this thing has been glorified on the media, we can't let this go, Singh added.
"Even if the CJI has decided not to go ahead. We can't let this go. Today jokes are being made. Jokes are being made over the institution. This can't go on. It will bring disrepute and disrespect to the institution, the way this thing has been glorified", Singh said.
Justice Surya Kant, however, was of the view that such individuals only seek media highlights and do not deserve any undue importance.
"As far as the individual is concerned, what is his intent except to get media highlight? Why give such an importance to him? He is getting importance by virtue of this incident. Let us, Bar and Bench both, think of the larger issue of issuing guidelines in this regard," he said.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that while such conduct falls within the scope of the Contempt of Courts Act, the discretion exercised by the concerned judge is decisive.
"You are rightly saying that it's the question of the institution. These are also part of the scheme of the Contempt of Courts Act. Throwing of a shoe, shouting slogans in the courtroom are contempt. In such cases it's left to the charge. In this case, the CJI in his glorious magnanimity chooses to ignore. Is it within the domain of another Bench or even the Attorney General to grant consent for criminal contempt? When the concerned judge himself has let go of it... we are conscious of the second limb of argument that guidelines with regard to glorification of such incidents... We will ensure that this case may remain pending so that necessary guidelines can be issued with regard to publication of such cases," Justice Bagchi said.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, however, persisted that action is needed in this regard. "It's the CJI's call to let it go. We as an institution cannot ignore it", Singh stressed.
Justice Bagchi, however, responded, "That was the end of contempt when CJI chose to let go of it."
"What he's doing thereafter, glorifying his act. The CJI didn't think of it when he let him go. How many posts are there where he's saying he will do it again as if the lord is asking him to do it. It's an insult to the god he's intending to glorify", argued Singh.
Justice Surya Kant, however, stated that, "As far as glorification is concerned, giving any undue importance to such a person will rather lead to his glorifying more. Such kind of persons have no stake in the system. By giving undue importance to the person, we will not be considerate of the magnanimity shown by the CJI."
Singh maintained that the CJI's leniency had emboldened Kishore. "The fact that the CJI let him go has emboldened him to say that he will do it again and again," Singh said.
The Court, however, observed that any punitive action would lead to further social media trials and trolling.
"Any action punitive would have led to more social media trials and trolling. We will request the Solicitor General also to assist as to what kind of punitive measure may be appropriate," the Bench said.
Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta submitted that such incidents usually have a short shelf life and fade away naturally.
"Another angle is his shelf life. It would be dazed once the incident gets older. Possibly issuing notice to him (seeking his reply) would increase his shelf life of his social media indulgence. He might start playing hero or victim of the system. It is bound to die its natural death. This is purely commercial gain -- so long as the channels know it's profitable, they will publish it. He's a product," the Solicitor General said.
Justice Surya Kant, concurring with the SG, said that the incident is bound for its natural death. Justice Kant concluded the hearing by stating that the Court will keep the matter pending to issue guidelines regarding social media publications and the glorification of such incidents.
"We can assure you that we will keep the matter pending for the purpose of issuing guidelines. Just ask two-three juniors to collate all kinds of content floating on social media. Don't file writ petitions; what's the difference between him and you if you keep filing petitions against him? Be bold enough," Justice Kant remarked.
The matter has been posted for further consideration. (ANI)