Daijiworld Media Network – New Delhi
New Delhi, Nov 26: Former Chief Justice of India B R Gavai has said that his calm reaction to the shoe-throwing attempt in the Supreme Court came naturally to him, shaped by his upbringing and values. Speaking to ANI, he said he chose not to take action against the lawyer involved as the decision came “in the spur of the moment”.
The incident occurred on October 6, when advocate Rakesh Kishore allegedly attempted to hurl a shoe at the then CJI during court proceedings. Security personnel immediately intervened and removed him from the courtroom. Even as the lawyer shouted slogans, Justice Gavai declined to pursue any action.
Reacting to criticism over the Supreme Court collegium, Gavai strongly defended its functioning, calling it “transparent” and rejecting claims of opacity. He said that since Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s tenure, collegium members have been directly interacting with shortlisted candidates and gathering inputs from consulting judges, chief ministers, governors, the executive, and the Law Ministry before taking a final call.
On criticism aimed at constitutional bodies and the judiciary, he said such remarks were “wrong”, adding that judges decide cases purely on law and facts. “Fair criticism of judgments is welcome, but criticising judges for their judgments is not in good taste,” he said.
Speaking on the controversy surrounding Justice Yashwant Varma, he termed it an “unfortunate episode” that had affected the judiciary’s image. With impeachment proceedings already initiated in Parliament, Gavai said it would not be appropriate to comment further as an inquiry led by a sitting Supreme Court judge is underway.
He also dismissed the notion that high-profile cases receive priority, pointing instead to the severe judge-population imbalance in the country. While matters of national importance may sometimes be taken up sooner, he clarified that this does not equate to preferential treatment.
On judicial activism, Gavai said the courts must remain accessible, especially for citizens facing socio-economic challenges. However, he cautioned that activism must operate within limits. “Judicial activism should not turn into judicial terrorism,” he remarked, stressing the Constitution’s clear separation of powers between the three branches of governance.