Daijiworld Media Network - New Delhi
New Delhi, Oct 6: A rare and startling disruption occurred in the Supreme Court on Monday when a man dressed in a lawyer's attire allegedly attempted to create a scene during proceedings before a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai. The individual reportedly approached the dais and appeared to be attempting to remove his shoe, prompting a swift intervention by security personnel, who escorted him out of the courtroom.
While being removed, the man shouted slogans referring to Sanatan Dharma. Despite the incident, CJI Gavai remained composed, urging calm in the courtroom.
“Don’t get distracted by all this. We are not distracted. These things do not affect me,” the CJI said, continuing the proceedings without interruption.
Sources later confirmed that the Chief Justice personally directed that no punitive action be taken against the man, signalling a decision to downplay the episode.
However, the incident has drawn a sharp response from the legal community. The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) issued a strongly worded resolution condemning what it called an “unwarranted and intemperate gesture” made by the purported advocate.
SCAORA labelled the act as “unbecoming of a member of the Bar”, warning that such conduct undermines the dignity of the legal profession and strikes at the very foundation of the mutual respect between the Bench and the Bar.
"This behaviour is antithetical to the dignity of the legal profession and contrary to the constitutional values of decorum, discipline, and institutional integrity," the resolution said.
The association also called for suo motu contempt proceedings by the Supreme Court, describing the man’s actions as a deliberate attempt to “scandalise the authority of the Court” and “erode public confidence” in the judiciary.
While the CJI chose magnanimity over punitive response, the incident has sparked wider discussions about security, courtroom decorum, and the responsibilities of legal professionals. The Bar's firm stance underscores that while freedom of speech is a protected right, it does not extend to disrupting constitutional institutions or disrespecting judicial authority.