SHOEGATE: DON'T REPLACE DISSENT WITH DOGMATISM

A lawyer's ideology-driven attempt at assaulting the Chief Justice was India's 'Capitol moment'-an attack on the top seat of constitutional adjudication. Duress cannot be a tool for dissent

- - KALEESWARAM RAJ

ON October 6, lawyers in the Supreme Court were apparently perturbed when an advocate abruptly hurled a shoe at the Bench led by the Chief Justice of India. Yet, the CJI and Justice K Vinod Chandran remained calm and continued the proceedings. The act was purportedly a token of protest against the CJI for certain remarks he had made while hearing a public interest litigation. The PIL was for restoration of a statue of Lord Vishnu at Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh.

The Bar Council and the Supreme Court Bar Association acted promptly and suspended the advocate, effectively blocking his practice at least for the time being. Of late, sanction for prosecuting the advocate for criminal contempt has been granted by the attorney general.

Such incidents are, however, not unprecedented. It is heard that decades ago, another CJI in the Supreme Court faced a similar situation with shoes thrown upon him. He then ordered the return of the shoes to the litigant, saying that he who lost the case should not also lose the shoes! In the UK in the 1960s, when books were thrown at a Bench comprising Lords Denning and Diplock, they refused to take action for contempt against the woman, earning praise from her as she was being led away. However, in 2009, in another disturbing incident, a woman who threw a slipper at a judge of the Supreme Court of India was immediately taken to custody and proceeded against.

Unlike these events, the latest assault was not by a disgruntled litigant, but by a person who was part of the institution, a citizen who was supposed to uphold rule of law. The motive was not merely personal but also ideological.

The event, in a way, shows India's 'Capitol moment' in a singular form. It was a clear attack on the supreme seat of constitutional adjudication; an attempt to demolish something more fundamental for the nation's existence.