“Action is necessary ": Delhi High Court deprecates shoe-throwing at CJI BR Gavai

“Action is necessary ": The Delhi High Court stated that the shoe-throwing incident at Chief Justice B.R. Gavai has deeply hurt us all. The bench headed by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay stated that merely condemning certain incidents is not enough; strict action is also necessary to address them.

Delhi High Court is deeply saddened by the shoe-throwing incident

The court made this remark while hearing a petition that demanded that all videos related to the shoe-throwing incident be removed from media platforms and that the statement of the lawyer who threw the shoe be removed from media platforms.

Also Read: Google will build a data center in space! What is Project Suncatcher?

The petition demanded that all videos related to the shoe-throwing incident at Chief Justice Gavai be removed from media platforms. The statement of the lawyer who threw the shoe should also be removed from media platforms.

Shoe-throwing incident at the Chief Justice of India

The Delhi High Court informed the petitioner that a case is already pending in the Supreme Court regarding this matter, seeking contempt proceedings against the lawyer who threw the shoe. He should also file an application in the pending case in the Supreme Court. If he cannot become a party there, the High Court will hear the petition again.

What is the whole matter?

Recently, an unusual incident occurred in Court No. 1 of the Supreme Court. A lawyer named Rakesh Kishore threw a shoe at Chief Justice Gavai. Kishore was heard saying, "India will not tolerate the insult of Sanatan Dharma."

Also Read: What would happen if 3I/ATLAS actually hits Earth? How did it enter solar system from another galaxy?

Summary

This is not the first time a serving judge has been physically attacked in the court. In 2009, a woman threw a slipper at Justice Arijit Pasayat, while his colleagues made offensive remarks against the bench. Justice Pasayat had ordered three months' imprisonment for these persons and referred the matter to a larger bench, which upheld the conviction for contempt and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh each on them.