Friday, December 5Latest news and updates from Kashmir

Right-wing voices celebrate shoe attack on CJI in Supreme Court

by News Desk

On Monday, Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai narrowly escaped an attack in the Supreme Court when a lawyer, Rakesh Kishore, approached the dais, removed his shoe, and attempted to strike him.

The incident took place during hearings related to the restoration of a beheaded Lord Vishnu idol. Security personnel intervened immediately, preventing the assault. Kishore reportedly declared that insults to Sanatan Dharma “will not be tolerated,” framing the act as a protest in defense of Hindu religious sentiments.

Prime Minister Modi condemned the incident as an “utterly condemnable” act that “angered every Indian.” He expressed his appreciation for CJI Gavai’s composure during the incident, stating that it highlighted his commitment to the values of justice and the Constitution. PM Modi also emphasized that such acts have no place in a civilized society.

Rahul Gandhi termed the attack as an “assault on the dignity of our judiciary and the spirit of the Constitution.” He expressed concern over the growing culture of hate in the country and stressed that such hatred has no place in the nation

While political leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Congress leaders, and several BJP figures, condemned the attack, social media reactions from right-wing Hindutva accounts quickly revealed a disturbing pattern of celebration and incitement.

Ajeet Bharti, a prominent right-wing commentator, tweeted, “This is the beginning. If such depraved, anti-Hindu, and cowardly judges express the venom of their hearts, contrary to what is written in their orders, to demean Hindus, the same will happen to them on the streets.”

Other pro-BJP handles were even more extreme. One account wrote, “Gun is better than shoes. Just saying!!” while another commented that the Supreme Court’s “tyranny had reached its limits” and that releasing rapists “was playing with Hindu sentiments.”

Several right-wing voices also targeted lawyers who criticized the attack, claiming that calling out judges for misconduct made them terrorists. Bharti further tweeted, “Supreme Court is not some divine entity that it cannot be criticized. The contempt law itself is absurd and must be struck down.”

Numerous social media users openly called for punitive action against CJI Gavai. Photonmarcopolo tweeted, “CJI should resign. A legal action against him for hurting Hindu sentiments should be started.” Neeraj Atri defended the attacker, describing Rakesh Kishore as “one courageous man” who knew the ramifications of his protest but had no other avenue to seek justice. Bala (@erbmjha) cited Kishore’s motivations, claiming that the CJI had “mocked Lord Vishnu” during the restoration case, and called Gavai a “Latkhor.”

The narrative was amplified by several journalists who framed Kishore as an educated, frustrated citizen. Rahul Shivshankar quoted him saying, “I am against violence. I am an MSc, a gold medallist. Very educated. I was not intoxicated. So, you have to ask what brought me to express my frustration in this way.” Videos circulating online further fueled polarization, with right-wing influencers urging action against the CJI.

In one clip, a voice can be heard saying, “Hindus cannot even spit on Gavai. It will mostly get a punishment of six months.” Another post celebrated Kishore’s attack with the caption: “Sanataan Ka Apmaan…Nahi Sahega Hindustan,” encouraging viewers to share the video widely.

Meanwhile, the discourse quickly turned communal and partisan. Some trolls went as far as labelling anyone defending Gavai as an “Islamist” and derogatorily attacking them online. AB (@ABoni8) wrote, “STFU Islamist bumwasher. Go lick boots of your masters. When you folks attack corrupt Chudiciary then it’s freedom of speech and defiance. You were going after CJI DYC recently. You folks attack CJI Misra, Bobde, Gogoi. Scum. Vultures.”

News coverage also played a role in shaping public perception. Videos of Muslim lawyers, with identifiable religious markers like skullcaps and long beards, condemning the attack were circulated by news wires. Experts argue that this representation, even if coincidental, subtly framed the incident as a Hindu versus Muslim issue, diverting attention from the core problem: an assault on the judiciary.

Dr. Kishore, a media analyst from Bihar, said, “This is how discourse is manipulated to polarize public opinion. The interviews of Muslim lawyers, identifiable by skullcaps and beards, were not coincidental. They were presented to show Muslims condemning the attack on CJI Gavai, while uniting the other side as Hindu, giving the incident a communal angle. In reality, this is an attack on democratic institutions, not a religious matter.”

Dr. Kishore warned that the Gavai incident demonstrates how social media trolls and selective coverage can escalate hate-filled narratives, erode trust in judicial institutions, and foster communal polarization. “The framing of such incidents often obscures underlying socio-legal issues, reducing complex realities of caste, class, and gender to a simplistic religious dichotomy. ”

The Supreme Court shoe-attack and the subsequent online response highlight the urgent need for responsible journalism, stricter moderation of online hate, and the protection of democratic institutions against ideologically motivated attacks, he said.