NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday sought to dissuade any action against lawyer Rakesh Kishore, who attempted to hurl a shoe at the Chief Justice of India, saying it may open another episode, with the social media monetising it in the days and weeks to come.
The court refused a plea to list on October 17 a petition seeking contempt action against the lawyer who made an unsuccessful attempt to throw a shoe at the CJI on October 6 during the court proceedings apparently hurt over his comments in Lord Vishnu idol case.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was informed that the Attorney General has given a consent to initiate contempt proceedings against the Delhi lawyer for his act, as required under the Contempt of Courts Act.
The court, however, pointed out taking any action in the matter may open an another episode and the CJI has himself decided to close it. It also highlighted the social media may further monetise it by discussing it in the days and weeks to come.
Senior advocate and president of Supreme Court Bar Association Vikas Singh mentioned the matter seeking urgent listing on Friday as the lawyer has not expressed any remorse and justified his act.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta endorsed Singh's submission saying some people on social media glorified it, by saying that the act was too late to have been done.
The bench, however, said the CJI has been magnanimous, showing that the institution is not affected by such acts.
"Lord Vishnu will not say that you indulge in violence like this, it is an insult to the God whom he (the accused lawyer) sought to pay respect to," Singh said.
The bench said, violence can never be promoted.
"Just think when you initiate such kind of proceedings. In social media, everything becomes a saleable item," the bench said.
Singh urged the court to pass a John Doe order.
"It is for us and our behavior in courts that we survive. It is that spirit which Hon'ble CJI exhibited. Just washed it aside. You have come before us, our request is to consider whether against breaking up an issue which for us is complete, will it help giving opportunity to these chirping elements to go on," the bench said.
The court also pointed there are many more important matters before it and asked if it would not waste its time.
"We are seeking restraint against glorifying the incident," Singh said.
The bench, however, said, "The moment you take any action, it would become episode number two."
The bench again underscored such John Doe order will lead to cavalcade of comments.
"It is our behavior and how we handle ourselves that we garner respect. The CJI has brushed it aside as an act of an irresponsible citizen. You have to consider that whether raking an incident which we have given closure to. Is it needed at all especially in an overburdened court? See spending five minutes on this.. we could have decided cases where persons are in jail or want bail," the bench said.
The bench also said, "Once we take this up, it will again be spoken about for weeks "
The court also said it has become money spinning ventures.
Mehta said, social media worked on algorithms. "This makes us addicted.. we are infact the products and not that we are using it," he said.
The court pointed algorithms are so designed that it worked on hate, caste, anger etc, so it gets more hits, likes.
"Your mentioning today will only be monetised. We do not have to co-operate on this monetisation and let it die a natural death," the bench said.
The bench said, let us see what happens in a week and read more saleable items.
The court also said after the vacation maybe some other saleable items will come up.
71-year-old Kishore, who made the attempt to throw a shoe on the CJI during the court proceedings, sought to justify his acts claiming he was deeply hurt by remarks made in Lord Vishnu idol case last month. He was suspended by an interim by the Bar Council of India and barred from practicing in any court of the country.
The CJI subsequently said he was shocked with the incident but it was a forgotten chapter.
Disclaimer: This content is produced and published by LawStreet Journal Media for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are independent of any legal practice of the individuals involved.
