Misplaced leniency for rogue lawyer who hurled shoe at CJI

There is growing uneasiness at the whitewashing of fact that a ‘senior advocate’ hurled a shoe at Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai. Delhi Police let him off, ostensibly because the CJI did not press charges. Prime Minister Narendra Modi belatedly condemned the incident (the shoe was hurled at 11.30 am and the PM’s social media post came at 8.29 pm) and spoke to the CJI, appreciating his calmness at the affront. The CJI came in for high praise for remaining unruffled and unfazed, for quipping that such things do not distract him and for continuing with the proceedings.

The offending ‘lawyer’, meanwhile, basked in his moment of glory or infamy. In an interview to news agency ANI, he declared on Tuesday, 7 October, that he had no regrets at his conduct; that he was hurt over the CJI orally telling the petitioner that instead of seeking publicity by asking the court to intervene, he might do better by meditating and praying to the deity to restore its own head in the complex protected by ASI, when the petitioner wanted the court to pass directions to restore the mutilated head of an ancient statue in the Khajuraho caves.

The leniency shown to this rogue lawyer has not gone unnoticed. People have been quick to recall that in 2023, four youngsters protesting against rising unemployment and the Manipur conflict, had released harmless smoke inside Parliament to draw attention. They were charged under the draconian UAPA and sent to jail. In contrast, the rogue lawyer who assaulted the CJI was on Tuesday busy giving interviews to the media and dispensing gyan to the judges.

The observation by the CJI was made on 16 September, and the 72-year-old lawyer ‘with no affinity to any group’, as he claimed, waited until 6 October to hurl the shoe, which missed the CJI. The lawyer righteously claimed that he was only the instrument, that he did what God had willed him to do. He did not explain why God willed his shoe to miss the CJI.

In the same interview, he let the cat out of the bag and mentioned that he was also hurt at the CJI asserting in Mauritius that the Indian judiciary ran on the rule of law and not bulldozers. The lawyer, who has a house in Bareilly from where, he took care to mention, had obtained a BSc degree, justified the use of bulldozers by UP police without following due process.

His justification shocked lawyers, who felt that the act of hurling the shoe was meant to intimidate the court into not acting against ‘bulldozer justice’ despite the Supreme Court specifically banning sudden and arbitrary use of bulldozers to demolish structures and houses by way of summary justice in defiance of the rule of law. It was a signal to the CJI that he should not take any suo moto action against use of bulldozers in Bareilly.

What makes the act even more suspicious is the campaign against the CJI by right-wing influencers for several days before the incident. How could it have escaped the notice of the intelligence agencies? Fact checker Md Zubair posted a clip from the YouTube channel of right-wing influencer Ajeet Bharti with one Kaushlesh Rai and Anupam Singh.

Rai is heard saying that at least one Hindu lawyer should grab Gavai Ji’s head and hit him hard against the wall. Can’t a Hindu spit on the CJI’s face, he went on to add, suggesting less violent acts as a Gandhian act since Hindus did not have the spine any longer to act as Godse. This was incitement to violence and amounted to hate speech. It merited action by the police and the state. They did nothing.

It is curious because the government is usually quick to crack down on criticism or cartoon in a Facebook post, and demanding that service providers take down offensive posts and videos, and yet it did nothing to book offenders behind such incitement against the Chief Justice of India. Even 24 hours after the insult and the assault directed at the CJI, the offending RW YouTube video had not been taken down. However, unconfirmed reports on Tuesday held that Bharti had been taken into police custody, possibly following Zubair’s post.

Senior advocate and former additional solicitor-general of India Indira Jaising told news agency PTI on Tuesday, “I am not an eyewitness to the incident; what I know, I know from reading what the press has published. It calls for investigation. I consider it to be an attack on the institution as a whole, not just the CJI. I do consider it to be a casteist remark against the Chief Justice… It requires a legal response from the Supreme Court of India.”