Shoe at Supreme Court: Symbol of India’s Judicial Crisis

Part 1: When Courts Fail Both Ancient Dharma and Modern Jurisprudence

A 71-year-old lawyer’s desperate act reveals a pattern of presumed judicial bias that violates both constitutional law and Vedic principles of justice.

When Non-Violence Meets Its Breaking Point

On October 6, 2024, something unprecedented happened in India’s apex court — the Shoe at Supreme Court incident. Advocate Rakesh Kishore attempted to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, shouting “Sanatan Dharam ka apmaan nahi sahega Hindustan” (“India will not tolerate disrespect towards Sanatan Dharma”) before being escorted out by security.

This wasn’t an act of a radical or a troublemaker. Kishore, a highly acclaimed supreme court lawyer, defended his act the next day, saying he was deeply hurt by the CJI’s remarks on a religious case, felt mocked by the judiciary, had no regrets, and acted out of emotional pain. In his own words from a video statement: “मैं बहुत ज़्यादा आहत हुआ… मैं हिंसा के बहुत ज़्यादा खिलाफ हूं, मगर आप लोग ये भी देखिए कि एक अहिंसक आदमी, सीधा सच्चा आदमी, जिसके ऊपर कोई case आज तक नहीं है, किसी group को नहीं belong करता है, उसको क्यों ये सब करना पड़ा” (I was deeply hurt… I am very much against violence, but you should also see why a non-violent man, a straightforward honest man, who has no case against him till date, doesn’t belong to any group, had to do all this).

The question isn’t whether we condone such actions—violence in any form is deplorable. The real question is: What drives a peaceful, law-abiding senior advocate to such desperation?

The Grievances That Led to Shoe at Supreme Court

In his detailed video statement, Kishore outlined specific instances where he felt the Supreme Court displayed systematic bias against Hindu religious matters while showing exceptional sensitivity toward other communities. His primary grievances included:

1. The “Meditate Before Idol” Mockery

Kishore cited a September 16 PIL hearing where he claimed the bench made light of a petitioner’s concerns about a Khajuraho temple idol, suggesting the petitioner “pray to the idol” and “ask the idol to repair itself.” He stated: “जब हमारे सनातन धर्म से related कोई मामला आता है… तो वो ज़रूर ऐसा कोई न कोई order pass करते चली आ रहे हैं” (When any matter related to our Sanatan Dharma comes up… they certainly keep passing such orders).

This, to people like Kishore, looks like a disturbing pattern we’ll examine in detail in Blog 9 of this series—judicial comments that mock Hindu religious sentiments while maintaining extreme caution with other faiths.

2. The Haldwani Railway Land Case

Kishore referenced the Haldwani case where the Supreme Court in January 2023 stayed the Uttarakhand High Court’s order for removal of encroachments from 29 acres of railway land, saying “50,000 people cannot be uprooted overnight” and calling it a “human issue.” The stay order has been extended repeatedly since then, with the Court most recently giving two months in September 2024 for a rehabilitation scheme.

He contrasted this immediate judicial intervention and prolonged protection with the treatment of Hindu religious matters, highlighting what he perceived as selective application of urgency and compassion. The question he implicitly raised: Why does the Court find “human sensitivity” for encroachers on government land but not for those seeking protection of ancient temples?

This pattern of selective speed—instant stays for some, perpetual delays for others—will be systematically documented in Blog 7, examining how the Supreme Court’s intervention in the Jahangirpuri demolition case revealed a troubling double standard in upholding the rule of law.

3. The Nupur Sharma Blame

Perhaps most controversially, Kishore invoked the Nupur Sharma case, where the Supreme Court held former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma “single-handedly responsible for igniting emotions across the country” and said her “loose tongue set the country on fire”. “जब Nupur Sharma का मामला आया, तो Court ने कह दिया आपने माहौल खराब कर दिया” (When Nupur Sharma’s matter came up, the Court said you spoiled the atmosphere), he stated in his video.

The Court went so far as to say her “outburst is responsible for the unfortunate incident at Udaipur,” where a tailor was beheaded—effectively holding her accountable for violence committed by others simply because they were offended by her statements about religious texts.

This case, which we’ll analyze in depth in Blog 8, represents a critical moment where the Supreme Court appeared to prioritize “maintaining peace” over fundamental rights of free speech—but only when the speaker was Hindu.

4. Interference in Hindu Festivals

Kishore also mentioned judicial overreach in matters like “Jalebi ki ऊंचाई” (height of jalebi towers) and “Dahi Handi की ऊंचाई” (height of dahi handi formations)—micromanagement of Hindu festival practices that seems disproportionate compared to the Court’s hands-off approach to practices of other communities.

The Supreme Court in 2016 ruled that human pyramids during Dahi Handi (Janmashtami festival) cannot exceed 20 feet and banned participation of minors below 18 years. This level of granular regulation of a traditional Hindu celebration—dictating exact heights and age restrictions—stands in stark contrast to the Court’s reluctance to intervene in practices of other faiths that may raise similar safety concerns.

These individual grievances reflect a larger institutional trend, which other analysts and observers have also highlighted across a variety of judicial and administrative contexts.

Other Criticisms Reflecting the Same Pattern

As per critics and analysts the grievances voiced by Advocate Rakesh Kishore during the Shoe at Supreme Court incident were not isolated perceptions. Over the past decade, numerous judicial and institutional episodes have drawn similar criticism for displaying selective sensitivity and inconsistent standards of justice.

Across diverse contexts—religious, political, and cultural—the same imbalance emerges: when matters involve Hindu traditions or nationalist positions, courts and commissions tend to act with exaggerated caution or even derision; when other faiths or ideological groups are involved, restraint replaces scrutiny.

Some of the most telling examples include:

• Unequal Bail Standards:
  Manish Sisodia: Analyzing Grant of Bail in Delhi Excise Policy Case showed how influential political figures benefited from judicial leniency, while Hindu activists charged under comparable or lighter allegations awaited justice for months.

• Judicial Delay in Civilizational Cases:
  Article 370: Path to Insertion and Revocation documented how petitions challenging the unconstitutional Article 35A remained dormant for years, while cases involving minority grievances were heard on priority.

• Cultural Policing through Courts:
  In Caste System and Supreme Court Judgment, observers noted that the Court’s remarks on certain Hindu reform efforts appeared to adopt a secular–skeptical tone, viewing spiritual traditions through a regulatory lens rather than a cultural or philosophical one.

• Narrative Bias in Riot and Violence Cases:
  Delhi Riots 2020: Unmasking the Real Causes Beyond the CAA revealed how judicial and media framing shifted blame disproportionately toward Hindu groups even when evidence indicated otherwise.

• Disproportionate Regulation of Hindu Religious Practices:
  Hygiene at Kanwar Yatra Route and Related Controversies and Maha Kumbha Mela 2025: Analyzing the “Mad Rush” of Hindus to Holy Waters examined how Hindu gatherings are policed under pretexts of safety and health, while similar scrutiny is rarely extended to other faith congregations.

• Neglect of Historical Atrocities:
  Assam Agitation and Khoirabari Massacre and Bangladesh Hindu Killings: Politics of Massacre documented relative judicial silence or limited intervention has been observed both within and beyond India’s borders.

Together, these cases form a pattern what critics describe as a mosaic of institutional asymmetry supporting Kishore’s perception that the Shoe at Supreme Court was not a random act of outrage, but the physical manifestation of a deeper national fatigue with double standards.

Beyond these case-specific inconsistencies lies a deeper issue—the paradox of transparency itself, where the call for openness applies to everyone except the judiciary.

Judicial Transparency and Selective Accountability

Several critics argue that the judiciary’s commitment to transparency appears selective. This is evident in its own rulings—such as striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission without proposing an alternative framework. When the Supreme Court struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme in 2024 citing transparency, it simultaneously maintained opacity in its own appointments, deliberations, and accountability mechanisms.

Under the collegium system, the appointment and elevation of judges remain among the most opaque processes in the Republic—closed to legislative scrutiny, inaccessible under RTI, and immune to external audit. Files are processed through confidential channels not open to public scrutiny, dissent notes are rarely recorded publicly, and even questions of bias or conflict of interest are addressed internally.

Critics argue that such opacity directly contradicts the very standards the judiciary imposes on others. In what other organ of the State can those who interpret the Constitution exempt themselves from its spirit of openness?

The contrast is even starker when one observes the seasonal shutdowns of the Supreme Court, where the country’s highest judicial body often closes for weeks of vacation amid pending constitutional cases of national urgency. Many see this colonial-era practice as a symbolic carry-over from the British Raj—an institution that once served the Crown now reflecting an institutional culture still rooted in colonial-era procedures.

Together, these inconsistencies deepen the perception that the Court’s commitment to transparency and equality is conditional, not constitutional—applied rigorously when it exposes others, but relaxed when it concerns its own corridors of power.

Why This Matters: The Civilizational Crisis

The shoe at Supreme Court Chief Justice thrown by Adv Rakesh Kishore was not just an outburst; it was the sound of a civilization gasping for justice in its own homeland. It symbolized the breaking point of a people who see their temples litigated, their faiths mocked, and their culture reduced to folklore by institutions meant to protect equality. The act was less about one Chief Justice and more about centuries of accumulated imbalance between Dharma and the modern State.

Every civilization has a threshold of endurance. For Sanatana Bharat, that threshold has been stretched by decades of judicial and political asymmetry even 75 years of exit of the British Raj. The many believe bias has become institutional through education, policy, and discourse—encoded through education, policy, and public discourse. When judgments on Hindu matters are delivered with sarcasm, while others receive silence and sympathy, it creates a sense of moral orphan-hood among Hindus. This is not mere religious grievance—it is civilizational dislocation.

The crisis is not confined to the courts. It spans classrooms where ancient texts are caricatured, media studios where “faith” becomes a synonym for superstition, and bureaucracies where temple lands are controlled but Waqf properties enjoy constitutional sanctity. When dharmic voices question this, they are labelled extremist; when others assert identity, they are called minorities. The imbalance is systemic, not incidental.

This is why the Shoe at Supreme Court incident must be understood as civilizational—not criminal. Advocate Rakesh Kishore, an OBC lawyer representing the grassroots Hindu experience, was articulating the silent anguish of millions who still believe in the sanctity of Dharma yet find no institutional reflection of that faith. His act was misguided, but his pain was real.

The civilizational crisis thus has four dimensions:
(1) Cultural Deracination – The loss of self-respect when dharmic traditions are presented as backward.
(2) Institutional Betrayal – Courts and commissions that treat Hindu issues with ridicule while extending protection to others.
(3) Political Fragmentation – Leadership that divides Hindus into castes and regions while uniting others under faith solidarity.
(4) Moral Fatigue – A spiritual exhaustion where non-violence becomes misinterpreted as passivity.

Unless these layers are recognized, every act of frustration—from protests to shoe-throwing—will be misread as rebellion rather than reflection. This is the true “civilizational crisis” Bharat faces today: not anarchy, but alienation.

But erosion also comes from within—from ideologies born out of internal disaffection rather than external invasion.

The most sophisticated resistance to Hindu civilization today often does not come from declared outsiders but from those who look and sound entirely Hindu. Many of these voices descend ideologically from Ambedkarite Buddhism—a movement that renounced Hindu deities but retained Hindu names, festivals, and regional identities. Their criticism, therefore, arrives in disguise: the same surnames, the same languages, even the same temples of origin, now turned into platforms of denial.

This concealment creates a peculiar advantage. When hostility is wrapped in the attire of reform, it escapes scrutiny. A Buddhist who rejects Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesh but keeps a Hindu surname speaks from inside the wall, not outside it. Public episodes such as Rajendra Pal Gautam’s 2022 mass-conversion event in Delhi, where thousands repeated vows renouncing Hindu gods, or remarks by certain SP leaders like Swami Prasad Maurya questioning the power or relevance of Hindu deities, show how such critique often travels under the banner of “social justice.” Because these figures carry Hindu-sounding names and cultural symbols, their words are received as self-critique rather than hostility. The result is a slow corrosion of confidence within Hindu society—each attack appearing like introspection, each denigration presented as progress.

As shown in Ambedkar’s Buddhist Political Move: Divergence from Gandhi on Caste Issues and Critique of Ambedkar and the Manusmriti, Ambedkar’s critique of Hinduism rested not only on colonial misreadings of dharmic texts and British-era caste codifications that had already distorted India’s social fabric, but also on Nehru’s political philosophy of perpetuating colonial governance models and centralizing authority. Nehru’s continuation of British administrative attitudes—favoring control over consensus and hierarchy over dialogue—marginalized independent voices like Ambedkar’s and reinforced the very social divisions the freedom movement had sought to dissolve.

This political exclusion created a deeper psychological consequence: Ambedkar came to equate Nehru’s dismissive conduct with the collective attitude of Hindu society itself, assuming that the upper-caste dominance he faced in Congress politics reflected the sentiment of the Hindu community at large. In effect, Nehru’s autocratic posture unintentionally convinced Ambedkar that Hindus as a whole despised the lower castes—an impression that redirected his reformist energy from internal reconstruction to external rejection of Sanatana Dharma. Sanatan Dharma and Caste Divide and Ramabai Killings further documents how these colonial frameworks hardened fluid varna identities into rigid caste hierarchies, providing the backdrop against which Ambedkar’s alienation deepened and his later critiques turned increasingly civilizational rather than purely social.

The symptoms of this inherited bias surface even in judicial spaces. The Shoe at Supreme Court incident—where an OBC lawyer symbolically protested perceived religious bias—was not merely an outburst; it was a civilizational signal. When Hindu petitioners feel disconnected from a judiciary seen as ideologically detached, the disconnect is no longer personal—it becomes systemic.

The challenge, therefore, is not merely identifying external threats to Hinduism but understanding this internalized bias—born of conversion politics, colonial framing, and moral dislocation—that continues to weaken Hindu unity from within.

Shoe at Supreme Court: When Dharma Meets the Courtroom

The Double Failure: Modern Jurisprudence Perspective

From a purely constitutional and modern jurisprudence standpoint, Kishore’s grievances—regardless of his method of protest—point to serious institutional failures:

Violation of Equal Protection

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality before law. When courts apply different standards of urgency, different thresholds of sensitivity, and different levels of intervention based on the religious identity of petitioners or respondents, they violate this fundamental constitutional principle.

The Haldwani case receiving immediate judicial intervention while Hindu temple matters languish for decades isn’t just perceived bias—it’s measurable disparity in the administration of justice.

Selective Application of Secularism

The Indian Supreme Court has historically invoked secularism to regulate Hindu religious practices—from temple management to festival celebrations. Yet this same principle of state non-interference mysteriously evaporates when dealing with personal laws, religious endowments, or practices of minority communities.

This selective secularism fails the basic jurisprudential test of consistent application of legal principles. As we documented in our analysis of the Waqf Act judicial responses, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld provisions that would be considered unconstitutional if applied to Hindu religious institutions.

Free Speech Double Standards

The treatment of Nupur Sharma—where the Supreme Court essentially held her responsible for violence committed by others—sets a dangerous precedent. Under established jurisprudence globally, speech that merely offends cannot be criminalized unless it constitutes direct incitement to imminent lawless action.

By blaming Sharma for “creating unrest” when she quoted religious texts, the Court effectively imposed a heckler’s veto—allowing the most violent respondents to determine what speech is permissible. This principle, if applied consistently, would silence all controversial speech. But it isn’t applied consistently—which is precisely the problem.

The Double Failure: Ancient Dharma Perspective

From a dharmic perspective, the Supreme Court’s pattern represents an even more fundamental failure—an abandonment of the timeless principle of Sama Dharma (equal dharma or equal duty toward all). This ancient ideal forms the moral foundation of governance and justice in the Vedic worldview.

Shoe at Supreme Court and Violation of Nyaya (Justice) Principles

Ancient Indian jurisprudence, as outlined in texts like Manusmriti and Narada Smriti, emphasizes that a judge must be sama-darshanah (equal-visioned). The Mahabharata’s Shanti Parva declares: “धर्मेण हीनाः पशुभिः समानाः” (Those devoid of dharma are equal to animals).

When judges apply different standards based on community identity, they violate this fundamental principle. The dharmic concept of justice isn’t about religious favoritism—it’s about treating similar cases similarly regardless of who is involved.

The Judge’s Dharma

The Vedic concept of Rajdharma (the ruler’s duty) applies equally to modern judges. It mandates:

1. Sama (equal treatment): No favoritism based on birth, wealth, or community
2. Daya (compassion): But without compromising justice for sentimentality
3. Satya (truth): Honest application of law without fear or favor
4. Ahimsa (non-violence): Not just physical, but violence through unjust decisions

When Courts have been perceived by some to display insensitivity toward Hindu religious sentiments while treating other faiths with extreme deference, they violate the principle of Sama. When they delay justice for decades in some cases while providing instant relief in others, they violate Satya. When their decisions enable mob violence (as we documented in our analysis of Delhi Riots 2020), they violate Ahimsa.

Why This Matters: The Civilizational Crisis

The shoe thrown at CJI Gavai isn’t just about one frustrated lawyer. It’s a symptom of a deeper malaise—the complete loss of institutional credibility.

Consider the historical parallel: The Assam Agitation and Khoirabari Massacre happened because people felt the legal system had abandoned them in the face of demographic invasion. When legal institutions fail, people resort to extra-legal methods—not because they’re inherently violent, but because they see no other recourse.

Similarly, when millions of Hindus undertake arduous journeys to Maha Kumbha Mela seeking spiritual solace, part of that “mad rush” stems from a civilization that feels its institutions—including its courts—no longer protect its sacred traditions.

The Bail Jurisprudence Contrast

Perhaps nothing illustrates this institutional crisis better than comparing the Supreme Court’s approach to different categories of accused. Our detailed analysis of Manish Sisodia’s bail showed how swiftly the Court moved to grant relief in politically connected cases.

Yet when it comes to Hindu activists arrested for defending temples or religious rights, bail applications languish for months. When it comes to reopening investigations into the 1989 Kashmir Exodus—the largest religious cleansing in independent India—the Court simply refuses to act.

This isn’t just about religious bias. It’s about fundamental judicial integrity—or the lack thereof.

The Path Forward: Neither Violence Nor Silence

We do not endorse Rakesh Kishore’s method. Violence, even symbolic violence, undermines the very rule of law we seek to protect. CJI Gavai maintained composure, instructing lawyers to continue their arguments without distraction—demonstrating the dignity that judicial office demands.

But we cannot ignore what drove him to that point. When a 71-year-old lawyer with no criminal record, no history of violence, and no political affiliation feels compelled to throw a shoe in the Supreme Court, we must ask: How many others feel the same frustration but express it through silence and withdrawal from civic life?

The answer isn’t more contempt proceedings against protesters. The answer is institutional introspection.

What This Series Will Examine

Over the next 12 weeks, we will systematically examine the cases and patterns that led to this moment:

• The Institutional Failures: How the analysts cite instances where the Court’s recent rulings appear inconsistent with earlier precedents and constitutional principles
• The Religious Bias Pattern: Documented instances of differential treatment based on community identity
• The Historical Injustices: Cases where the Court’s inaction enabled civilizational damage
• The Legal Paradoxes: Decisions that defy basic jurisprudential logic

Each blog will apply the double lens of analysis:

1. Modern Jurisprudence: Does it meet constitutional and international legal standards?
2. Ancient Dharma: Does it uphold Vedic principles of justice and governance?

The thesis we will prove is devastating: This analysis suggests that the Supreme Court may be falling short on both fronts. It violates modern constitutional law AND ancient dharmic principles. It satisfies neither secular jurisprudence nor traditional Indian concepts of justice.

The Uncomfortable Truth

When asked whether his actions might lead to more such incidents, suspended Advocate Rakesh Kishore said, “Judges should work on their sensitivity”.

He’s not wrong. But the sensitivity he demands isn’t special treatment for Hindus. It’s equal treatment. It’s the same sensitivity, the same urgency, the same standard of justice that’s readily extended to others.

The shoe thrown in Court 1 of the Supreme Court on October 6, 2024, will be remembered as a symbol—not of disrespect for the judiciary, but of a judiciary that appears to have eroded public confidence in its constitutional role. It represents the moment when the gap between judicial rhetoric and judicial reality became so wide that even the most law-abiding citizens could no longer ignore it.

As we embark on this 12-part series, we invite you to examine the evidence yourself. We will provide sources, cite judgments, and draw parallels to both ancient wisdom and modern legal theory. Our goal isn’t to undermine the judiciary—it’s to restore it by demanding it live up to its own highest standards.

Because ultimately, the shoe wasn’t thrown at CJI Gavai personally. It was thrown at decades of accumulated judicial failures—failures of dharma, failures of law, and failures of institutional integrity.

What Comes Next: We establish the theoretical framework—what do both Vedic Dharma and Modern Jurisprudence actually demand from courts? How do we measure judicial success or failure by these dual standards?

Disclaimer – This article is a commentary and academic discussion on institutional accountability and the perception of judicial asymmetry. It does not allege misconduct or motive by any individual judge. The views expressed are analytical, protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and intended for fair criticism in the public interest.

Feature Image: Click here to view the image.

Videos

Related Reading from Hinduinfopedia:

1. https://hinduinfopedia.org/manish-sisodia-analyzing-grant-of-bail-in-delhi-excise-policy-case/
2. https://hinduinfopedia.org/caste-system-and-supreme-court-judgment/
3. https://hinduinfopedia.org/delhi-riots-2020-unmasking-the-real-causes-beyond-the-caa/
4. https://hinduinfopedia.org/maha-kumbha-mela-2025-analyzing-mad-rush-of-hindus-to-holy-waters-ii/
5. https://hinduinfopedia.org/assam-agitation-khoirabari-massacre-and-its-causes-consequences-and-legacy/
6. https://hinduinfopedia.org/bangladesh-hindu-killings-politics-of-massacre-part-iii/
7. https://hinduinfopedia.org/mumbai-attacks-reflections-on-november-26ths-impact-on-indias-path/
8. https://hinduinfopedia.org/krishna-janmabhoomi-temple-a-spiritual-journey-in-mathura/
9. https://hinduinfopedia.org/article-370-path-to-insertion-and-revocation/
10. https://hinduinfopedia.org/hygiene-at-kanwar-yatra-route-and-related-controversies/
11. https://hinduinfopedia.org/ambedkars-buddhist-political-move-divergence-from-gandhi-on-caste-issues/
12. https://hinduinfopedia.org/ambedkars-buddhist-conversion-challenging-caste-with-new-faith/
13. https://hinduinfopedia.org/manusmriti-critique-of-ambedkar-and-its-modern-relevance/
14. https://hinduinfopedia.org/ambedkars-criticism-and-the-manusmriti-insights-and-impact/
15. https://hinduinfopedia.org/ambedkars-criticism-of-manusmriti-a-modern-review/
16. https://hinduinfopedia.org/mahatma-gandhi-life-and-legacy-perspectives-from-history/
17. https://hinduinfopedia.org/poona-pact-colonial-legacies-and-enduring-divisions-in-hindu-society/
18. https://hinduinfopedia.org/manusmriti-criticism-unpacking-historical-and-modern-contexts/
19. https://hinduinfopedia.org/manusmriti-spiritual-guidance-navigating-lifes-sacred-stages/
20. https://hinduinfopedia.org/manusmriti-life-stages-exploration/