In a startling incident at Delhi’s Karkardooma Court on Tuesday morning, senior advocate Rakesh Kishore, who had previously hurled a shoe at former Chief Justice of India B R Gavai in the Supreme Court, was attacked by a group of men inside the court premises. The incident, which has sparked widespread discussion in legal and political circles, was captured in a video that quickly circulated on social media, showing Kishore being assaulted, pushed, and surrounded by individuals chanting slogans. Kishore, who is in his seventies, was seen attempting to shield himself and avoid further confrontation as the attack unfolded.

Kishore, speaking to reporters following the incident, said that the assault was carried out by members of the opposition, who had allegedly threatened him previously in connection with the shoe-throwing episode at the Supreme Court. He detailed that the primary attacker was a young advocate, who approached him wielding his slippers. Kishore recounted that he had arrived at the court in the morning accompanied by a friend to hand over a case, and was confronted by the assailants during his visit. According to Kishore, the attackers explicitly referenced his earlier action against the then CJI, stating that the assault was in retaliation for having “hurt” the Chief Justice. He also noted that the men were chanting religious slogans while attacking him, adding a communal undertone to the incident.

Despite the severity of the attack, Kishore stated that he had not sustained any grievous injuries and, therefore, did not wish to file a formal complaint with the authorities. “We didn’t file a complaint. What’s the point of complaining against lawyers? They are all our own brothers. It’s just a small matter within the family,” he remarked, indicating his preference for handling the matter within the legal fraternity rather than escalating it through formal police action.

The incident drew attention from the Shahadara Bar Association, where Secretary Narveer Dabas confirmed the event, noting that the bar had not yet received a formal complaint from either side involved in the scuffle. “Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who had in the past attempted to throw his shoe at then Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, allegedly got into a scuffle with a group of lawyers inside the Karkardooma court premises at around 1 pm today. Kishore was returning after attending a matter at court no. 10 when the incident took place,” Dabas said. He further explained that the bar body would take appropriate action once an official complaint was received from either party, emphasizing the procedural approach the association adheres to in resolving such internal disputes.

To provide context, the attack on Kishore comes months after a widely publicized incident on October 6, when he hurled a shoe at the then Chief Justice of India, B R Gavai, during a Supreme Court hearing. The act drew national attention and was widely condemned for breaching courtroom decorum and showing disrespect to the office of the Chief Justice. Following that incident, Kishore was detained by authorities, but the then CJI chose not to file a formal complaint, a decision that perhaps influenced how the matter was managed by legal authorities and the bar. At the time, the incident sparked debates about courtroom security, the behavior of legal professionals, and the growing trend of symbolic protests by advocates within judicial spaces.

The attack on Kishore at Karkardooma Court has again reignited discussions on security protocols within court premises, particularly for senior advocates and individuals involved in controversial cases or high-profile incidents. Legal experts have emphasized the need for heightened vigilance and effective security arrangements to ensure the safety of advocates, court staff, and litigants alike. Courts in India, especially metropolitan high courts like Delhi, host a large number of cases every day, making security management a complex and continuous challenge. In recent years, there have been multiple instances of scuffles, verbal confrontations, and even physical assaults within court premises, highlighting the delicate balance between maintaining an open judicial environment and ensuring personal safety.

In addition to security concerns, the incident raises questions about professional conduct within the legal fraternity. While Kishore characterized the assault as a minor matter within the “family” of lawyers, the optics of a senior advocate being physically attacked by fellow members of the bar have drawn criticism from various quarters. Commentators have pointed out that such incidents can undermine public confidence in the legal profession and the judicial system as a whole. The bar associations, while emphasizing self-regulation, are also faced with the challenge of maintaining discipline and preventing personal or political rivalries from spilling over into physical confrontations within court premises.

The Karkardooma incident also sheds light on the broader discourse surrounding protest methods adopted by legal professionals. Kishore’s shoe-hurling act in October was an unprecedented and extreme form of protest against the Chief Justice, reflecting his deep dissatisfaction or personal grievances with the judiciary. While such actions are rare, they demonstrate the lengths to which some individuals might go to express dissent within the judicial ecosystem. However, these actions also blur the lines between legitimate protest and disruptive or criminal behavior, posing challenges for courts in maintaining decorum while respecting freedom of expression within legal boundaries.

Observers have noted that incidents like these highlight the underlying tensions within the legal community, where personal, professional, and political motivations can intersect, sometimes resulting in confrontations. The assault at Karkardooma Court can be seen as a direct repercussion of Kishore’s prior actions, raising questions about the culture of accountability and the mechanisms available to address grievances among legal practitioners. Legal analysts argue that bar councils and associations may need to consider more robust conflict-resolution mechanisms to prevent such incidents and to mediate disputes before they escalate into physical confrontations.

Furthermore, the incident underscores the potential risks faced by elderly advocates in high-stress and politically charged environments. Kishore, in his seventies, faced a group of attackers significantly younger than him, demonstrating a vulnerability that could have resulted in serious injuries had the altercation escalated further. This has prompted calls from some quarters for increased attention to the safety and well-being of senior members of the bar, including the provision of dedicated security personnel and regulated access within court premises.

While the immediate focus remains on the scuffle itself, the broader implications of the incident touch upon judicial security, professional ethics, and the culture of dissent within the legal profession. The event at Karkardooma Court is likely to be discussed in bar association meetings, and may prompt reviews of protocols for managing high-profile advocates or individuals with controversial histories within the legal system. Additionally, it may reignite debates over the balance between freedom of expression and maintaining decorum in judicial spaces, especially in cases where legal practitioners engage in extreme forms of protest.

In conclusion, the attack on Advocate Rakesh Kishore at Delhi’s Karkardooma Court is a significant event that highlights multiple challenges faced by India’s judicial ecosystem. While Kishore himself has downplayed the severity of the incident and chosen not to file a complaint, the occurrence raises important questions regarding courtroom security, professional conduct, and the mechanisms available to protect senior advocates. It also serves as a reminder of the complex dynamics within the legal profession, where personal grievances, political undertones, and professional rivalries can intersect, sometimes resulting in physical confrontations. As the bar and the judiciary navigate the fallout from this incident, it remains to be seen how lessons will be learned and what measures will be implemented to prevent similar occurrences in the future, ensuring that courts remain spaces of justice, safety, and professionalism for all participants.