Seventy-one-year-old Supreme Court advocate Rakesh Kishore, who was prevented from hurling a shoe at Chief Justice Gavai inside the Supreme Court yesterday, has openly defended his act as a reaction to statements that deeply hurt him. He says he does not regret his action.

Kishore told reporters:

“A PIL was filed in the Court of CJI on 16th Sept about restoring the head of an ancient Vishnu idol. The CJI mocked it and asked the petitioner to pray to the idol so it restores its own head. I was very hurt by the statement by the CJI. This was not even the first time. Consistently, the same judge is often seen being sympathetic to other religions. He did not allow the anti-encroachment drive in Haldwani to continue. They blamed Nupur Sharma for ‘trying to instigate violence’. But whenever there is a matter that is about the rights of Hindus, of Sanatan Dharma, the judiciary has been averse to showing similar considerations for Hindus, be it Jallikattu, or the height of Dahi Handi. It has been their norm to humiliate Hindus and disregard their religious sentiments.”

These words show how Kishore sees a pattern — in his view, a pattern of bias and contempt toward Hindu religion and its practices by the sitting Chief Justice.

Kishore went further, addressing the controversy surrounding Gavai’s caste, religion, and personal path. He said:

“My name is Dr Rakesh Kishore. Can someone tell my caste? Maybe I am a Dalit too. It is one-sided that you are taking advantage of the fact that he (CJI Gavai) is a Dalit. He is not a Dalit. He was a Sanatani Hindu first. He then renounced his faith and followed Buddhism. If he feels that he has come out of Hinduism after following Buddhism, how is he still a Dalit? This is about mindset.”

Kishore frames this as not just a legal or procedural dispute, but a matter of identity and mindset — challenging the very basis on which Gavai’s critics or defenders appeal to his caste or faith.

Additionally he asserted:

“…Judges should work on their sensitivity. Lakhs of cases are pending...I am neither going to apologise, nor do I regret it. I have not done anything; you are questioning me. Almighty made me do it...”

Here, Kishore denies any wrongdoing in intent — that is, he insists he acted out of emotional pain, not malice or premeditated violence.

He also addressed expectations on a judge at such a high constitutional position:

“…CJI should think that when he is sitting on such a high constitutional post, he should understand the meaning of 'Milord' and uphold its dignity...You go to Mauritius and say that the country will not run with a bulldozer. I ask the CJI and those opposing me: Is the bulldozer action by Yogi ji against those who encroached on government property wrong?...I am hurt and will continue to be so...”

Kishore was referring to a prior comment by Gavai made at Mauritius, wherein Gavai had said that “the country will not run with a bulldozer” — a remark Kishore considers inconsistent with respect toward actions taken against encroachments. Reporters have documented that this reference to bulldozer justice drew sharp reactions, including from Kishore himself.

Finally, Kishore stressed that even if denying relief to the petitioner in the idol case was within judicial discretion, mocking the petitioner’s religious faith was beyond the pale. He said:

“It is okay if the CJI did not provide relief to the petitioner in the idol case. But why did he mock his faith? I am not a violent person. I was not drunk or drugged. I am a non-violent, highly qualified person. I don’t have any regrets about what I did. I do not belong to any group. They should think about why a person like me was compelled to take such a step. The judiciary and law enforcement are free to take any action against me as per their judgment.”

In sum, Kishore frames his act not as aggression but as a protest forced by insult and neglect. He wants the public, the legal system, and the judiciary to pause and ask: what kind of indignity pushes a law-abiding person to such a drastic step?

Solidarity for Gavai? Just Five Lawyers Show Up — Despite Heightened Security

In a demonstration against the shoe attack on CJI Gavai held outside the Supreme Court, only five lawyers turned out, even though around 50 police officers had been deployed to maintain order. Journalist Prabhakar Kumar Mishra, tweeting a video from the site, drew attention to the stark mismatch between security and support.

As Mishra reported, “There was a protest outside the Supreme Court against the attack on CJI Justice Gavai. Around 50 police officers were present, 20 cameras came for coverage — and only five lawyers showed up to protest.” This low turnout suggests that few in the legal fraternity were willing to publicly back Gavai in this moment.

The limited support raises uncomfortable questions: if the judiciary is this isolated, is it because it has repeatedly failed to uphold fairness — especially toward Hindus and Sanatan Dharma, as Kishore alleges? The question gains sharper edge when we recall that the spark of the entire incident was, in Kishore’s claim, Gavai’s mocking of a petitioner’s faith.

After the incident, Prime Minister Narendra Modi condemned the act, calling it “utterly reprehensible” and demeaning to constitutional order. He spoke to the CJI by phone, expressing solidarity and denouncing the attack.

Critical Reflections

• Kishore insists his act was not random violence or drunkenness — “I was not drunk or drugged” — but a deeply personal reaction to what he perceived as mockery.

• He frames Gavai’s remarks about Hindu idols as more than judicial opinion — as derision toward faith itself.

• The small turnout in support of the CJI reveals institutional distance between the judiciary and its own bar, perhaps reflecting unspoken discomfort with his repeated insensitivities.

In defending Kishore’s reaction, one does not necessarily condone every method, but the core demand must be heard: a Chief Justice — especially the CJI — must show respect, humility, and equality across religions. If mockery of religious petitioners becomes routine, outrage is not just inevitable — it may be inevitable and rightful.