<p class="bodytext">A lawyer’s attempt to throw a shoe at the Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, inside a courtroom when the court was in session, marks a new low in professional and personal conduct. The assailant is not an immature young man with a grudge, or a publicity seeker, but a 71-year-old lawyer and member of the Bar Council of India. He should be considered ideologically driven because he was heard shouting that India would not tolerate any disrespect to Sanatan Dharma. He was ostensibly referring to the CJI’s recent remarks in a case seeking restoration of a Lord Vishnu idol in the Khajuraho temple complex in Madhya Pradesh. The CJI had dismissed the plea and told the petitioner to “go and ask the deity himself to do something.”</p>.<p class="bodytext">The remark was interpreted as a slight of the deity, triggering some protests, and the lawyer decided to deliver his brand of punishment. It is difficult to imagine how the deity is slighted or how Sanatan Dharma is involved when the CJI was merely pointing out that the plea had no legal grounding and did not warrant the Court’s intervention. Advising someone, seriously or otherwise, to appeal to god on matters where legal and other remedies are not available cannot be seen as a slight of god. It is within the rights of the CJI – as a judge and as a citizen – to make such a statement, and he can’t be legally or constitutionally faulted for it. He also clarified that he respected all religions. Misinterpretation of the statement and attribution of false intent to it led to the controversy and the ugly show of protest in the courtroom, which also signifies a growing intolerance that is vitiating society.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Such intolerance does not accept even a judicial decision if it is considered as conflicting with faith. It questions the rule of law and denigrates its highest symbol. It expresses itself in various ways: as rejection of judicial decisions, lynching of people, or resorting to bulldozer justice. The throwing of the shoe was an act of instant and false justice, wrapped in hatred. Judges have been criticised and attacked in other ways too, over the verdicts they have delivered. There is also an assumption that Sanatan Dharma is beyond criticism. India’s polity and society are rooted in the Constitution and not Sanatan Dharma. Justice Gavai should be lauded for remaining calm. Prime Minister Narendra Modi did well to condemn the attack, which elicited similar disapproval from across the country.</p>
<p class="bodytext">A lawyer’s attempt to throw a shoe at the Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, inside a courtroom when the court was in session, marks a new low in professional and personal conduct. The assailant is not an immature young man with a grudge, or a publicity seeker, but a 71-year-old lawyer and member of the Bar Council of India. He should be considered ideologically driven because he was heard shouting that India would not tolerate any disrespect to Sanatan Dharma. He was ostensibly referring to the CJI’s recent remarks in a case seeking restoration of a Lord Vishnu idol in the Khajuraho temple complex in Madhya Pradesh. The CJI had dismissed the plea and told the petitioner to “go and ask the deity himself to do something.”</p>.<p class="bodytext">The remark was interpreted as a slight of the deity, triggering some protests, and the lawyer decided to deliver his brand of punishment. It is difficult to imagine how the deity is slighted or how Sanatan Dharma is involved when the CJI was merely pointing out that the plea had no legal grounding and did not warrant the Court’s intervention. Advising someone, seriously or otherwise, to appeal to god on matters where legal and other remedies are not available cannot be seen as a slight of god. It is within the rights of the CJI – as a judge and as a citizen – to make such a statement, and he can’t be legally or constitutionally faulted for it. He also clarified that he respected all religions. Misinterpretation of the statement and attribution of false intent to it led to the controversy and the ugly show of protest in the courtroom, which also signifies a growing intolerance that is vitiating society.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Such intolerance does not accept even a judicial decision if it is considered as conflicting with faith. It questions the rule of law and denigrates its highest symbol. It expresses itself in various ways: as rejection of judicial decisions, lynching of people, or resorting to bulldozer justice. The throwing of the shoe was an act of instant and false justice, wrapped in hatred. Judges have been criticised and attacked in other ways too, over the verdicts they have delivered. There is also an assumption that Sanatan Dharma is beyond criticism. India’s polity and society are rooted in the Constitution and not Sanatan Dharma. Justice Gavai should be lauded for remaining calm. Prime Minister Narendra Modi did well to condemn the attack, which elicited similar disapproval from across the country.</p>
