Unlike previous incidents, the aftermath of this week’s attack has been unusual. Both earlier attacks led to arrests, trials and convictions. In contrast, the Delhi police detained the accused in the latest incident, reportedly questioned him for three hours, and released him the same day without filing a criminal case.
Published Oct 07, 2025 | 5:02 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 07, 2025 | 5:03 PM
Supreme Court of India. (Wikimedia)
Synopsis: The recent attempt by a Delhi-based lawyer to attack Chief Justice of India BR Gavai in the Supreme Court recalls the only two other major attacks in independent India’s history: the 1968 stabbing of Justice AN Grover inside the courtroom and the 1975 grenade attack on Chief Justice AN Ray. Physical attacks on the Indian judiciary are exceedingly rare, and both previous incidents led to major reforms and criminal prosecutions. Yet, the accused lawyer in the latest incident has not only continued to remain free, but has also begun to defend his actions publicly.
On Monday, 6 October, the Supreme Court of India witnessed a rare breach. Rakesh Kishore, a 71-year-old Delhi-based advocate, attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai during proceedings in Courtroom Number 1.
A resident of Delhi’s Mayur Vihar and a member of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Kishore was reportedly upset with the CJI’s remarks during a recent hearing on the restoration of a Lord Vishnu idol at the Khajuraho Temple complex in Madhya Pradesh.
He was immediately detained by security personnel. While being escorted out, he allegedly shouted, “Sanatan dharma ka apmaan nahi sahega Hindustan (India will not tolerate the insult of Sanatan dharma).”
Physical attacks on the Indian judiciary inside courtrooms are exceedingly rare in the 78-year history of independent India, but not without precedent. There have been two other high-profile incidents in which judges came close to death.
On 13 March 1968, chaos erupted in the Supreme Court when a man named Man Mohan Das, described at the time as mentally unwell, lunged toward a bench comprising Justices M Hidayatullah, CA Vaidialingam, and AN Grover. At that time, courtrooms were open to the public, and anyone could attend proceedings.
Justice Hidayatullah later recalled in his memoir My Own Boswell [pg.218-223] that as the bench was about to deliver a judgment, “the man moved past the court master and jumped on the Bench to attack the Judges.”
He shouted, “Have a care, he has a knife and is going to attack us,” as the man struck Justice Grover, leaving a gash on his scalp.
Justice Hidayatullah and court staff quickly subdued the attacker, who was then handed over to the police. Justice Grover was taken to Willingdon Hospital and made a full recovery.
The assailant was later tried, with the judges themselves giving evidence in court. The incident prompted the first major security restrictions within the Supreme Court, ending the earlier practice of unrestricted public access to courtrooms.
Seven years later, on 20 March 1975, Chief Justice AN Ray and his son, Ajoy Nath Ray, narrowly escaped an attack when two men threw hand grenades into their car outside the Supreme Court. The grenades did not explode.
Witnesses later told investigators that one man was seen throwing “something wrapped in a handkerchief” through the car window before running away. The attackers were soon arrested and prosecuted by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
According to their confession statements, the assailants were followers of the Ananda Marga sect. They believed Justice Ray was close to the government and had unjustly denied bail to their leader, Anandamurti.
The Economic Times reported that they were convicted of criminal conspiracy (Section 120B) and attempt to murder (Section 307) under the Indian Penal Code, and under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Each was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.
Decades later, the Delhi High Court upheld their conviction, and the Supreme Court declined to interfere. The case led to lasting security reforms – including armed protection for judges, security at their residences, and escort arrangements during court travel.
Unlike the 1968 and 1975 incidents, the aftermath of this week’s attack has been unusual. Both earlier attacks led to arrests, trials, and convictions.
In contrast, Delhi police detained Kishore, reportedly questioned him for three hours, and later released him the same day without filing a criminal case, after the SC office reportedly did not file any charges and asked for the lawyer to be released.
His shoes and documents were also returned, the Hindustan Times reported, citing police sources.
The Bar Council of India promptly suspended him from practice, barring his appearance “in all courts, tribunals, and other authorities of India with immediate effect.”
That has been the only formal repercussion so far.
At the same time, Kishore has been unapologetically defending his actions in interviews with several national media outlets.
“…I was hurt… I was not inebriated, this was my reaction to his action… I am not fearful. I don’t regret what happened,” he told ANI, in a tone suggesting he believed his act was morally justified.
“A PIL was filed in the Court of CJI on 16th Sept. The CJI mocked it and said—go and pray to the idol and tell it to restore its own head… When Nupur Sharma’s matter came up before the Court, the Court said that she vitiated the atmosphere… When a matter related to our Sanatan Dharma comes up, SC passes such orders. Don’t provide relief to the petitioner, but don’t mock him either… I was hurt… I was not inebriated; this was my reaction to his action… I am not fearful. I don’t regret what happened,” he added.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
