Former Chief Justice of India BR Gavai recently spoke candidly about an incident that occurred earlier this year, in which Advocate Rakesh Kishore attempted to hurl a shoe at him inside a courtroom. The incident, which took place on October 6, 2025, drew widespread attention and sparked discussions on courtroom decorum, judicial propriety, and the personal conduct of judges in the face of provocation. In an interview with ANI, Justice Gavai opened up about his thoughts and reflections on the matter, shedding light not only on his response to the incident but also on broader issues concerning the functioning of the Supreme Court collegium and the accountability of constitutional bodies in India.

The shoe-throwing incident occurred when Advocate Rakesh Kishore, for reasons not immediately clear, attempted to target Justice Gavai with a shoe during proceedings in the courtroom. Security personnel present at the scene acted swiftly, intervening to prevent any harm and removing the lawyer from the courtroom. The situation, which could have escalated into a major security concern, was contained without any physical injury to anyone present. While such incidents often provoke immediate legal or administrative action, Justice Gavai chose a different course. He decided not to pursue any action against the lawyer, an approach he attributes to his upbringing, personal values, and life experiences.

In his interview, Justice Gavai explained, “Maybe it is a result of my upbringing… I didn’t even know it was related to some alleged utterances or observations made by me in court.” He added that he initially felt compelled to take some form of action but recognized that the decision to refrain from pursuing legal or disciplinary measures was made “in the spur of the moment.” This measured response reflects a judicial temperament that prioritizes fairness and restraint over punitive reactions, even in situations where provocation is evident. It also underscores his belief in maintaining the dignity and decorum of the judiciary without unnecessarily escalating conflicts or drawing undue attention to acts intended to disrupt judicial proceedings.

Justice Gavai’s reflections on the incident extend beyond the immediate response to personal conduct. He emphasized the importance of values, upbringing, and life experiences in shaping how judges respond to challenges and provocations in the course of their duties. His decision not to act against the lawyer, despite the potential for widespread public scrutiny, demonstrates a philosophy of restraint that prioritizes the long-term integrity of the judiciary over short-term retribution or sensationalism. By choosing not to pursue punitive action, Justice Gavai sought to avoid turning an isolated act of disruption into a broader controversy that could distract from the functioning of the court or erode public trust in the judiciary.

In addition to discussing the shoe-throwing incident, Justice Gavai addressed criticisms that have been directed at the Supreme Court collegium system. The collegium, which is responsible for the appointment and elevation of judges to the higher judiciary in India, has faced recurring allegations of opacity and a lack of transparency in its decision-making processes. Justice Gavai strongly defended the functioning of the collegium, asserting that such allegations are not well-founded and that the system is, in fact, transparent. According to him, the process involves extensive interaction and consultation, both internally among collegium members and externally with consulting judges and the Law Ministry, ensuring that all aspects of a candidate’s suitability are taken into account before any final decision is made.

He elaborated that since the tenure of Justice Khanna, collegium members have personally interacted with all shortlisted candidates, soliciting feedback and input from a variety of stakeholders. This, he explained, is a deliberate effort to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of candidates and their potential for serving in the higher judiciary. Justice Gavai’s remarks reflect a commitment to defending institutional processes and affirming the integrity of the collegium system, which plays a pivotal role in maintaining judicial independence in India. He stressed that decisions are made after careful deliberation, consultation, and consideration of multiple perspectives, underscoring the rigorous standards and ethical considerations that govern the selection of judges.

Beyond defending the collegium system, Justice Gavai also spoke about the role of criticism in a democratic society and its relationship to judicial accountability. He highlighted that while fair and reasoned criticism of judgments is welcome and necessary in a healthy democracy, personal attacks on judges for their judicial decisions are not appropriate. He stated, “Cases are decided solely based on law and the judge’s understanding of it. Fair criticism of judgments is always welcome, but criticising judges for their judgments is not in good taste.” This distinction is critical in maintaining the authority and credibility of the judiciary, which relies not only on the rule of law but also on public confidence and respect for its impartiality.

Justice Gavai’s remarks also underscore a broader philosophy regarding the exercise of judicial discretion and the ethical obligations of judges. He emphasizes the need for judges to navigate complex situations with a combination of legal expertise, personal values, and moral judgment. The shoe-throwing incident, while seemingly isolated, serves as a case study in judicial conduct and decision-making. By choosing a path of measured restraint and reflection, Justice Gavai demonstrated that judges must balance the immediate pressures of their environment with a long-term commitment to justice, fairness, and institutional integrity.

The interview also provides insight into the personal qualities that guide Justice Gavai in his professional life. His upbringing, moral framework, and life experiences play a central role in shaping how he approaches difficult situations, including moments of personal attack or public scrutiny. These qualities are particularly significant for judges in positions of high authority, where decisions and responses can have far-reaching implications for public trust in the judicial system and the rule of law. His approach reflects a belief that the dignity of the office and the broader interests of the judiciary should take precedence over personal grievances or the desire for retribution.

Moreover, Justice Gavai’s reflections are a reminder of the delicate balance that judges must maintain between upholding the law and managing the expectations of the public. In an era of heightened scrutiny and instantaneous dissemination of information, incidents like the shoe-throwing event can quickly become national news, influencing public perceptions of judicial authority. Justice Gavai’s measured response exemplifies a philosophy that values calm, thoughtful action over reactionary measures, reinforcing the principle that the judiciary should rise above personal provocation to maintain its credibility and moral authority.

In conclusion, former CJI BR Gavai’s reflections on the shoe-throwing incident and his defense of the collegium system offer a nuanced perspective on judicial conduct, institutional integrity, and public accountability. By choosing not to pursue punitive action against Advocate Rakesh Kishore, Gavai demonstrated a philosophy rooted in restraint, personal values, and ethical judgment. His comments on the collegium system and the proper exercise of judicial discretion highlight the importance of transparency, consultation, and careful deliberation in maintaining the independence and credibility of the judiciary. Furthermore, his emphasis on the distinction between legitimate criticism of judgments and personal attacks on judges underscores the need for a responsible public discourse around the functioning of constitutional bodies. Through his reflections, Justice Gavai provides an important reminder of the principles, values, and ethical considerations that should guide judges in navigating complex situations, balancing legal obligations with moral responsibility, and maintaining public trust in India’s judicial institutions.

---