On October 6, 2025, a 71-year-old advocate named Rakesh Kishore attempted to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice of India BR Gavai inside the Supreme Court during a hearing. The act shocked the legal fraternity and sent ripples through the media. In the aftermath, a right-wing YouTuber and self-styled journalist, Ajeet Bharti, released a video mocking the CJI, going beyond commentary into harsh derision. Bharti, in his video, labeled Gavai a “lousy, undeserving judge” and said he “should face a contempt case.” He also veered into remarks about the judge’s Dalit-Ambedkarite background, which intensified the backlash. Bharti claimed he’d been planning a video around “shoes and the Chief Justice” and quipped that “shoes were sticking to him ever since,” referencing images of the judge’s footwear.
The timing and nature of Bharti’s video fueled controversy. Kishore’s shoe attack was linked to remarks CJI Gavai had made during a September 16 hearing on a petition concerning a severed Vishnu idol in Khajuraho, when the judge told petitioners to “go and ask the deity himself” to act, calling the petition a publicity interest litigation. Those words drew heavy criticism from Hindu groups and right-wing influencers. In court, Gavai later clarified that his remarks were taken out of context and affirmed his respect for all faiths.
Meanwhile, Kishore’s license was suspended by the Bar Council of India, and police in Noida briefly detained Bharti for questioning — though officials later clarified he was not formally arrested. This episode has reignited debates about the boundaries of free speech, the dignity of the judiciary, and the risks of online provocations targeting high constitutional offices.
Social Media Divided After Shoe-Hurling Incident: “CJI Should Respect All Faiths,” Say Supporters of YouTuber
Following the shocking shoe-hurling incident targeting Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, online reactions have sharply divided public opinion. While many condemned the act as a disgraceful attack on judicial dignity, some social media users expressed sympathy for the accused advocate and YouTuber Ajeet Bharti, claiming the Chief Justice’s earlier remarks had “hurt religious sentiments.”
Several posts on X (formerly Twitter) and Instagram argued that the CJI “should respect all religions equally” and accused him of making “insensitive” comments during a previous court hearing on the Khajuraho idol case. Supporters of Bharti claimed that his remarks were a form of “free speech,” while critics countered that they amounted to contempt of court and hate speech disguised as criticism.
Legal experts, meanwhile, have stressed that freedom of expression cannot justify contemptuous or derogatory comments against the judiciary, particularly when they verge on personal attacks. The Bar Council and the Supreme Court registry have maintained that any disrespect toward the bench undermines public faith in the judicial system.
As the investigation continues, the episode has once again ignited debate about the fine line between dissent and defamation — and how far citizens can go when criticizing those who occupy the nation’s highest constitutional offices.
One X (formerly Twitter) user questioned, “Was Justice Verma ever called by any agency for questioning on the cash found at his residence? Because Ajeet Bharti was called by police for tweeting on a shoe and CJI. Just asking!”
This comment quickly gained traction, with several others echoing the sentiment that law enforcement appears inconsistent in its response to public criticism of judicial figures. Supporters of Ajeet Bharti argue that his comments fall under free expression, while critics maintain that his remarks were disrespectful toward the judiciary and could incite contempt.
The controversy began after a video surfaced showing a shoe being thrown toward the CJI during a public event — an act that has since been widely condemned. Bharti later mocked the incident online, prompting the police to call him in for questioning.
Meanwhile, social media continues to buzz with sharp opinions — some defending the judiciary’s authority, others alleging a clampdown on dissenting voices. As discussions intensify, the line between freedom of speech and contempt of court remains at the heart of the ongoing debate.
Discover more from News Diaries
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.