New Delhi [India]: A shocking incident unfolded in Court Room 1 of the Supreme Court of India on Monday when a lawyer allegedly attempted to throw an object at Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai. Swift action by the court’s security personnel prevented any harm, and the individual was immediately escorted out of the courtroom. The attacker is currently being questioned by senior police officials, including the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) of New Delhi and the DCP in charge of Supreme Court security.
Security thwarts attack attempt inside Supreme Court
According to eyewitnesses, the accused lawyer entered the courtroom dressed in full professional attire, complete with a proximity card and a lawyer’s bag. Advocate Anas Tanwir, who was present during the proceedings, stated that the man carried a rolled-up bundle of papers, which he appeared to intend to throw at the Chief Justice. Security officers intervened before the object could be hurled, ensuring the safety of all present.
As he was being escorted out, the lawyer reportedly shouted, “Sanatan ka apman nahi sahega Hindustan” (India will not tolerate insult to Sanatan Dharma). The outburst suggested a motive linked to perceived religious disrespect.
Reaction from legal community
The incident has sparked strong condemnation from members of the legal fraternity. Advocate Rohit Pandey, former Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), described the act as “deeply unfortunate and unacceptable.” He said, “It is a sad incident if a lawyer has attempted an assault inside the courtroom. I condemn it. I came to know that he was a member of the Bar, and he made this known after a comment on Lord Vishnu by the Honourable CJI. If it is true, then action must be taken.”
According to reports, before being removed from the courtroom, the attacker apologised to Justice K. Vinod Chandran, who was sitting alongside the CJI, clarifying that his intended target was only CJI Gavai.
Background of the incident
The incident is believed to have been triggered by remarks made by CJI Gavai during an earlier hearing related to a plea concerning a Lord Vishnu idol. The petitioner had sought directions to restore the idol, but the Supreme Court declined to entertain the matter. The CJI had observed that the petitioner should instead “go and seek the remedy by praying to Lord Vishnu,” as the issue pertained to a temple recognised as a protected monument under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
The bench opined that the ASI was the appropriate authority to handle such disputes, rather than the Supreme Court. However, the remark was widely circulated on social media, drawing criticism from some quarters who interpreted it as insensitive towards Hindu religious beliefs.
CJI clarifies stance on religious respect
In response to the online backlash, CJI Gavai clarified that he respects all religions equally and that his comments were not intended to offend any faith. His clarification came during the post-lunch session of the same day’s hearing.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who was also present in the court, supported the CJI, saying, “I have known the Chief Justice for the last ten years. He visits temples, churches, and mosques alike. Unfortunately, things are blown out of proportion on social media these days.”
Security and investigation underway
Following the attempted attack, security protocols at the Supreme Court have come under review. Senior officials from the Delhi Police are conducting a detailed investigation into how the attacker managed to enter with a bag and other objects despite tight security checks.
The police are verifying his identity, bar credentials, and motives behind the act. Preliminary reports suggest the lawyer had been active in court circles and may have been motivated by anger over the remarks concerning Lord Vishnu.
Authorities have assured that stringent action will be taken once the investigation concludes. The Supreme Court administration has also emphasised the need to reinforce courtroom security and maintain decorum during proceedings.
Broader implications
This rare and unsettling incident has raised concerns over the growing polarisation reflected even within judicial spaces. Legal experts and senior advocates have urged for restraint, reminding members of the Bar that disagreements with judicial remarks must be addressed through appropriate legal and institutional channels, not through acts of aggression.
As the probe continues, the event serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining respect for the judiciary and ensuring that the sanctity of the court is upheld at all times.