In a shocking turn of events at the Supreme Court, a lawyer allegedly attempted to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai during court proceedings on Monday. The chaos inside the courtroom left everyone stunned as security personnel swiftly intervened and restrained the accused lawyer.
The man behind the act, identified as Advocate Shrikant Prasad, later said he had “no regrets” for his actions. He claimed that he was deeply hurt by what he described as “anti-Sanatan Dharma orders” passed by the apex court in recent months. “I did what I felt was right. The court is supposed to protect justice, not hurt the beliefs of millions,” he reportedly said while being escorted by police.
This incident has once again put a spotlight on the debate around Sanatan Dharma and its interpretation in modern India. The term has recently become a flashpoint in political and legal discussions, with multiple petitions and cases touching upon matters of faith and constitutional morality.
Eyewitnesses inside the courtroom said Prasad suddenly stood up, shouted slogans related to Sanatan Dharma, and flung his shoe toward the bench. Thankfully, it missed its target, but the disruption brought proceedings to a halt.
The Supreme Court’s internal security measures are now under scrutiny following the incident. Questions are being raised about how an advocate managed to breach courtroom protocol so easily, despite existing security checks.
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) condemned the act, calling it “a shameful and unacceptable attack on the dignity of the judiciary.” Legal experts also reminded that while criticism of judgments is part of a democracy, such actions amount to contempt of court — a serious offense in India.
According to initial reports, Prasad could face charges under Sections 186 and 353 of the IPC for obstructing public servants, in addition to contempt proceedings. The court is also likely to consider disciplinary action against him for violating the lawyers’ code of conduct.
Meanwhile, the episode has ignited a wider conversation on freedom of expression and judicial accountability. Some have argued that dissent must stay within the boundaries of respect and law, while others see it as a reflection of growing frustration over faith-related rulings.
The Supreme Court, known for upholding constitutional values, now faces the challenge of balancing freedom of religion and secular justice — a balance that lies at the heart of India’s democracy.
