On May 14, 2025, Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai(Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) was sworn in as the 52nd Chief Justice of India (CJI), marking a historic milestone in the Indian judiciary. His elevation is significant not only for the office he now holds but also for the symbolic and substantive dimensions his background brings to it.
A Historic Appointment
- Justice Gavai is the first Buddhist to become Chief Justice of India.
- He is only the second person from the Scheduled Castes (SC) to hold this position, after Justice K. G. Balakrishnan.
- His term in office, though relatively short, is expected to last until November 23, 2025, when he reaches the age of retirement.
His appointment was in line with seniority convention: the outgoing CJI, Sanjiv Khanna, recommended his name in keeping with the tradition. (Wikipedia)
Gavai’s judicial career includes his elevation to the Supreme Court in May 2019, and prior to that, he served on the Bombay High Court starting from 2003 (initially as an Additional Judge) and became a permanent judge in 2005. (Wikipedia)
A Steady Jurist with Landmark Judgments
Even before assuming the top judicial office, Justice Gavai distinguished himself through several significant judgments. Some of his key stances include:
- Electoral bonds verdict: He was part of a Constitution Bench that struck down the electoral bonds scheme, critiquing opacity in political funding.
- “Bulldozer justice” critique: He has cautioned against executive excess and emphasized that the legal system must be governed by the rule of law, not expediency.
- SC/ST creamy layer debate: In the context of sub-classification debates among Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes, he suggested applying the “creamy layer” principle—i.e., more privileged sections of SC/ST groups may be excluded from certain benefits.
His style is often described as calm, restrained, and constitutionally anchored—a jurist who prefers reasoned argument over grandstanding.
The Recent Shoe Incident: Shock in the Supreme Court
What Happened
On October 6, 2025, during court proceedings in Court No.1 of the Supreme Court, a 71-year-old advocate named Rakesh Kishore allegedly attempted to throw a shoe at CJI Gavai.
Eyewitnesses reported the advocate shouted slogans such as “Sanatan ka apman nahi sahenge” (“We will not tolerate insult to Sanatan [Dharma]”) while moving toward the bench.
Security intervened quickly, detaining the advocate and removing him from the courtroom. The object thrown was variously identified as a sports shoe or possibly a rolled-up paper—precisely what was hurled remains ambiguous in some reports.
CJI Gavai, in the immediate aftermath, instructed the court not to be distracted, saying:
“I am not distracted by all this. You also don’t be distracted and proceed further with the case.” (The Indian Express)
Reaction & Fallout
- The Bar Council of India (BCI) promptly suspended the advocate’s license for his actions, labeling them as inconsistent with professional conduct.
- A show cause notice has been issued, and disciplinary proceedings are expected.
- Prime Minister Narendra Modi condemned the incident, terming it “reprehensible” and stating the act “angered every Indian.” He also commended Gavai’s composure.
- Rahul Gandhi called the attack an “assault on the dignity of the judiciary.”
- Mamata Banerjee described the episode as “most outrageous,” condemning it as an assault on the Constitution.
#BREAKING| BCI suspends practice of Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who attempted to attack CJI BR Gavai today
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) October 6, 2025
The Council has also initiated disciplinary proceedings against Kishore #SupremeCourt #cjibrgavai pic.twitter.com/Pv4lvPYTaV
Gavai’s Perspective: Staying the Course
In his first public comment after the incident, CJI Gavai reaffirmed his equanimity. He reiterated that the court should continue its business and that such distractions should not derail judicial proceedings. (The Indian Express)
This reaction is consistent with his reputation for calm, understated leadership. Throughout his career, he has often shied away from dramatic gestures, preferring to let reasoned jurisprudence speak for itself.
Larger Implications
This unsettling episode shines light on several structural and normative questions:
- Courtroom security and access controls
That a lawyer—assumed to have legitimate access—could approach and target the CJI within the courtroom raises serious questions about security protocols in India’s apex court. - Limits of dissent in democratic spaces
Even legitimate grievance must be lodged through lawful means. The act of hurling objects in court is not protest but contempt and violence. - Secularism, religion, and judicial speech
The incident was triggered by remarks by Gavai in a separate case involving restoration of a Lord Vishnu idol. Some perceived his language as insensitive to Hindu sentiments.
Gavai later clarified: “I respect all religions.” - Judicial independence in an age of politics
The judiciary often sits at the crossroads of law and politics. Such episodes underscore how judges today must be vigilant in both interpreting law and navigating public sentiment.
Key Developments & Issues to Watch
- Disciplinary outcome: The decision of the BCI and any court actions against the advocate will set a precedent about how such breaches are treated.
- Reforms in courtroom security: Expect scrutiny of protocols, passes, and screening mechanisms in courts, especially for those with privileged access.
- Gavai’s remaining tenure: With just over six months left in office, attention will be on how he handles pending high-profile cases, reforms, and administrative changes.
- Institutional trust: Incidents like this can erode public confidence in judicial sanctity; it will be important that the system responds firmly to reinforce institutional integrity.
Chief Justice B. R. Gavai stepped into office with symbolic weight representing both religious diversity and historically marginalized voices. (The Economic Times) In the face of the recent courtroom assault, his calm response, and the quick institutional reaction, will be closely watched by legal circles, the media, and the public alike. As the tenure progresses, the balance he strikes between safeguarding judicial dignity and preserving constitutional fairness may define how history remembers his term.