PM Modi Rings Up CJI After Attack at Supreme Court — Says Incident Has ‘Angered All Indians’

In a shocking turn of events on October 6, 2025, Prime Minister Narendra Modi personally phoned Chief Justice of India (CJI) B. R. Gavai after a lawyer attempted an assault within the hallowed precincts of the Supreme Court. The incident — involving the throwing of a sheaf of papers (or, in some reports, a shoe) — caused an immediate uproar across legal, political, and public spheres. In his post-call statement on X (formerly Twitter), PM Modi wrote that the attack “has angered every Indian,” and he praised the composure of the CJI under pressure.

This article offers a comprehensive, in-depth, and nuanced look at that dramatic day: what exactly happened, how the judiciary and nation responded, the political and legal ramifications, and what this says about the state of discourse and decorum in India today.

PM Modi calls CJI after attack in Supreme Court

On the morning of October 6, PM Modi reached out to CJI Gavai following the unprecedented courtroom incident. In his message, he strongly condemned the act as “utterly reprehensible,” remarking that “the attack on him earlier today in the Supreme Court premises has angered every Indian.” He further noted, “There is no place for such reprehensible acts in our society” and expressed appreciation for the calm displayed by Justice Gavai in such a trying situation.

This call was not merely symbolic — it signalled the gravity with which the executive viewed an attack on the highest judicial authority. The Prime Minister’s remark underscores the shared institutional understanding: an assault on a judge, especially at the apex court, is an assault on public faith, democracy, and the rule of law.

What exactly happened in court?

The moment of disruption

During a live hearing in Court No. 1 of the Supreme Court, an advocate named Rakesh Kishore allegedly hurled a shoe (or, alternately, a sheaf of papers) at the Bench occupied by CJI Gavai. Court officers, startled by the act, scrambled to intervene. Security personnel moved swiftly to restrain Kishore and escort him off the premises.

Shock, surprise, and composure

Despite the sudden disruption, CJI Gavai maintained extraordinary composure. He reportedly told the courtroom:

“Don’t get distracted by all this. These things do not affect me. Please carry on.”

He urged counsel to continue their arguments, and in doing so, refused to allow the outburst to derail the judicial process. The CJI’s demeanor — calm, firm yet unflappable — became immediately notable and drew praise from multiple quarters.

The attacker’s lament

As he was escorted away, Kishore raised slogans such as “Sanatan ka apman nahi sahenge” (“We will not tolerate insults to Sanatan Dharma”). In media accounts, he claimed emotional distress over recent remarks attributed to CJI Gavai in relation to a Vishnu idol case in Khajuraho, which had stirred controversy and social-media outrage. Kishore’s act was described by some as an expression of impatience with perceived insensitivity in matters of faith.

Unpacking motive: controversy over the Vishnu idol remarks

Many observers see the courtroom attack as directly tied to earlier remarks made by CJI Gavai concerning a Lord Vishnu idol in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh. During hearings on a petition seeking its restoration, CJI Gavai had reportedly urged petitioners to go and ask the deity directly or pray to Lord Vishnu instead of pursuing the matter in court. The remark sparked debates about judicial conduct, secular balance, and public sensitivities.

In response to blowback, the Chief Justice later clarified in open court that he respects all faiths and upholds true secularism. But the fallout from that case appears to have provided the emotional tinder for the assault. Observers see the attack not as an isolated lapse, but as symptomatic of the growing fault lines between religious sensibilities, judicial reasoning, and public sentiment.

Political leaders and parties condemn the attack

Within hours, condemnation poured in from across the political spectrum. Several key reactions:

• Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge called it “unprecedented, shameful and abhorrent,” characterizing it as an assault on judicial dignity and the rule of law.
• Sonia Gandhi described the act as an attack not just on CJI but on the Constitution itself.
• Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha, called it an attack on “the dignity of the judiciary and the spirit of the Constitution.”
• Parties from the Left, DMK, TMC, CPI(M) and regional parties issued statements of solemn condemnation.
• State leaders — including West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee, Tamil Nadu CM M.K. Stalin, Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan — denounced the act as an assault on democratic institutions.

It was a rare moment of cross-party unity: within the swirl of electoral tactics and ideological divides, the message was clear — violence against the judiciary is unacceptable.

Judicial and legal fraternity response

Bar Councils and lawyer associations

• The Bar Council of India (BCI) immediately suspended Kishore’s license to practice pending further disciplinary action.
• The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) issued unanimous condemnations calling the act “reprehensible” and a breach of court decorum.
• Local Bar Councils (e.g., Maharashtra & Goa) called it not just an assault on the CJI but on the Constitution itself.

Judges’ associations

Associations such as the Telangana Judges’ Association described the attack as a symbolic attack on judicial independence and demanded strict legal action. They asserted that such acts of intimidation will not shake the integrity or courage of India’s judges.

Collectively, the legal community rallied — lawyers, judges, bar bodies — to defend both the individual and the institution under attack.

Security, procedure, and court decorum under stress

This episode raises urgent questions about court security and procedural safeguards.

Security lapses and risk assessment

That an advocate could storm the dais and launch a projectile (whether shoe or papers) suggests vulnerabilities even in India’s top court. While courts traditionally maintain open access, security protocols may require review, especially for high-profile benches.

Maintaining dignity in court

Courtroom decorum is built on respect, discipline, and restraint. This incident breached that trust. Going forward:

• Stricter identification and security checks may be mandated for persons entering courtrooms.
• Contingency protocols for disruptions need to be formalized.
• Judges and court staff may need refresher training in threat responses.

Disciplinary consequences for the attacker

Beyond suspension by the BCI, Kishore may face:

• Disbarment
• Criminal prosecution for assault
• Court-imposed sanctions
• Formal show-cause notices under the Advocates Act

The legal system must act decisively to deter any recurrence.

PM Modi calls CJI after attack in Supreme Court — Significance and symbolism

The Prime Minister’s decision to call the Chief Justice in the aftermath carries layered symbolic weight:

1. Reaffirming institutional respect — It sends a message that the executive will not tolerate violence against the judiciary
2. Public reassurance — Citizens sensitive to threats against constitutional pillars would find solace in prompt response
3. Political signaling — It distances the government from condoning extremism or assaults in the name of religion
4. Strengthening constitutional norms — The act reinforces separation of powers and mutual respect

By openly acknowledging the gravity of the incident, the PM aimed to contain escalation and affirm the supremacy of law over violence.

Why did the act ‘anger all Indians’?

When PM Modi said the incident “angered every Indian,” he tapped into broad public sentiment. Why is this reaction so strong?

• The Supreme Court stands as a symbol of justice, equality, and constitutional stability. An attack on it strikes at the soul of democracy.
• In recent years, public trust in institutions has been fragile; such an act can undermine faith further.
• Religious or ideological grievances do not justify violence — the line between dissent and assault must remain firm.
• Citizens expect decorum and civility in politics and institutions; a courtroom attack is deeply jarring.

Thus, the outrage transcended party lines or belief systems — it was, for many, a cultural affront.

Public reaction: outrage, fear, and discourse

Social media storm

On platforms like X, thousands of users expressed indignation, fear, and calls for accountability. Hashtags such as #RespectJudiciary and #AngeredAllIndians trended. Many saw the act as symptomatic of a broader decline in civility.

Media analyses and op-eds

News outlets rushed to interpret the incident:

• Editorials warned of growing intolerance and ideological extremism.
• Opinion writers debated the role of religion in courtroom debates.
• Legal columnists speculated about the attack’s long-term implications.

Citizen dialogues and debates

In universities, forums, and TV panels, conversations centered on:

• The balance between freedom of speech and courtroom decorum
• The limits of protest, especially inside institutions
• The role of religious identity in public life

For many, this was not merely an isolated incident but a crossroads moment for institutional trust.

Comparisons: attacks on judges, globally and historically

Historical precedent in India

While rare, India has seen instances where judges faced verbal abuse or threats. Yet, the physical escalation—especially inside the Supreme Court—is unprecedented in modern memory.

Global analogues

• In the United States, judges have sometimes faced threats or protests at courthouses, but strict security protocols often prevent direct attacks.
• In parts of Latin America or Africa, hostile protests against courts have led to violence, though often in volatile political climates.

This event in India is ominous because it happened inside the highest court — not outside, not at a lower level, but in the very heart of constitutional power.

Possible political undercurrents and narratives

While the immediate act may have stemmed from personal grievance, political analysts see deeper currents:

• The use of religious slogans suggests alignment with communal narratives.
• The timing (soon after the Vishnu idol case controversy) suggests motive amplification by public discourse.
• The potential for political opportunism: parties may use the event to critique or defend institutional balance.

The incident risks being recast as a symbolic flashpoint in ongoing ideological debates.

What next? Legal, institutional, political steps ahead

1. Full investigation and accountability

The judiciary, police, and investigative agencies must collaborate to ensure:

• Transparent probe
• Due process for the accused
• Timely judicial review
• Recommendation for policy changes

2. Strengthening court security protocols

Understanding that tradition and openness must coexist with safety:

• Controlled access with screening
• Threat assessment cells
• Physical barriers or safe zones for judges
• Rapid-response procedures

3. Reassuring the judiciary’s independence

• Public statements (and actions) reaffirming noninterference
• Funding for administrative support and security
• Institutional autonomy must continue unimpeded

4. Public dialogue on institutional etiquette

Growing mistrust between institutions and citizens suggests need for:

• Civic education on court dignity
• Media responsibility in amplifying lawful discourse
• Balanced engagement on religious sensitivities

5. Legislative or judicial reform

Possible reforms include:

• Amendments to the Advocates Act or court rules
• Statutory penalties for assault on judges
• Judicial-led task forces on courtroom security

Risks and ripple effects

Chilling effect on court proceedings

Some lawyers may hesitate to argue controversial cases, fearing backlash.

Escalation of polarization

Opponents might politically weaponize the incident, deepening fault lines across religion, ideology, and institutions.

Institutional distrust

If the public perceives weak enforcement or impunity, faith in the judiciary may erode.

Precedent for impunity

If the legal response is weak, future challengers might test boundaries — an alarming precedent.

Key takeaways in brief

FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)

1. Who is the attacker, and what is his motive?

The person is Rakesh Kishore, a senior advocate, aged around 71, who claimed distress over remarks by CJI Gavai in a Vishnu idol restoration plea. He shouted slogans such as “Sanatan ka apman nahi sahenge” while being removed.

2. Was anyone physically harmed in the attack?

No injuries have been reported in credible sources. The projectile (shoe or papers) missed the target, and CJI Gavai remained unhurt.

3. What disciplinary action has been taken against the advocate?

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has suspended his license to practice. Further action, possibly disbarment or criminal prosecution, is under consideration.

4. Did PM Modi’s call to the CJI have legal or constitutional significance?

While not legally binding, the call was institutionally significant — it reaffirmed executive respect for judicial independence and signalled the state’s unwillingness to tolerate violence against constitutional offices.

5. Could this incident affect future courtroom security protocols?

Yes. Expect stricter access control, threat assessment mechanisms, possible physical barriers, and enhanced security for judges — especially during sensitive hearings.

6. What is the likely long-term impact on public trust and institutional relationships?

If handled responsibly, it may reinforce trust. But mishandling or perceptions of impunity could erode confidence in the judiciary, embolden fringe action, and deepen institutional divides.

Conclusion

The attack within the Supreme Court, and PM Modi’s prompt engagement — PM Modi calls CJI after attack in Supreme Court — are watershed moments. Beyond the drama of that moment lies a deeper test: can India’s constitutional institutions reaffirm their dignity, maintain their composure, and emerge strengthened rather than rattled?

In the days ahead, decisive investigation, clear accountability, structural protections, and robust public discourse will determine whether this becomes a moment of renewal — or one that chips at the foundations of trust. The nation will be watching, demanding that no such assault is ever repeated, and that the sanctity of law triumphs over the frenzy of ideology.