A dramatic incident unfolded inside the Supreme Court when a lawyer attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai during court proceedings. The act, which was quickly stopped by security personnel before the object could be hurled, has triggered widespread condemnation across the legal fraternity and political circles alike.

Security Intervenes During Courtroom Chaos

According to reports, the lawyer began shouting slogans before attempting to throw his shoe toward the bench where Chief Justice B.R. Gavai was presiding. Swift action by courtroom security prevented any harm or disruption to the ongoing proceedings. The individual was immediately restrained and escorted out of the courtroom premises.

Immediate Suspension Following Incident

Following the episode, authorities moved quickly to suspend the lawyer involved. The decision was taken as an immediate disciplinary measure in response to what many have described as an unprecedented breach of courtroom decorum. Legal observers noted that such behavior undermines the sanctity of judicial institutions, which rely on respect and order for their functioning.

Link to Social Media Misrepresentation

Preliminary accounts suggest that the outburst may have been influenced by distorted narratives circulating on social media about remarks attributed to Chief Justice Gavai. These misleading posts appear to have fueled anger among certain individuals, culminating in this disruptive act within one of the nation’s highest judicial forums. The incident underscores growing concerns about misinformation online and its potential impact on public perception of judicial matters.

Condemnation from Legal and Political Circles

The attempted attack has drawn sharp criticism from bar associations, legal organizations, and political parties across the spectrum. Many have described it as an affront to judicial independence and a dangerous precedent for public conduct within courts. Prominent voices within the legal community emphasized that disagreements with judgments or opinions must be expressed through lawful channels rather than acts of aggression or disrespect toward judges.

Calls for Safeguarding Judicial Dignity

In response to the incident, several legal bodies reiterated their commitment to preserving decorum in courtrooms nationwide. They urged lawyers and citizens alike to uphold civility when engaging with judicial institutions, warning that any form of intimidation or misconduct threatens not only individual judges but also the broader principle of justice itself. Political leaders echoed these sentiments, calling for restraint and respect for constitutional processes even amid disagreement or dissent.

The lawyer involved was later released after being removed from the courtroom, but disciplinary proceedings are expected to continue under established professional conduct rules. The Supreme Court has not issued an official statement beyond confirming that order was swiftly restored following the disturbance.

The episode serves as a stark reminder of how misinformation can escalate into real-world confrontations within spaces meant for reasoned debate and legal resolution. It also reinforces ongoing discussions about maintaining decorum in public institutions while ensuring freedom of expression remains balanced with responsibility and respect for due process.