When Disrespect Met Dismissal: The Supreme Court's Quiet Refusal to Inflame a Scandal

You know, there are moments in the hallowed halls of justice when something truly outrageous happens, and you expect a certain, shall we say, gravitas in response. A show of force, perhaps, or a stern rebuke. But then, every so often, the highest court of the land reminds us that wisdom, sometimes, lies in simply letting things be. And that’s precisely what unfolded recently, presenting us with a rather compelling lesson in judicial pragmatism.

The incident itself was, by any measure, quite startling: a lawyer, in what one could only describe as a deeply misguided act of protest, allegedly hurled a shoe in the direction of none other than the Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud. Now, for most, this would surely trigger an immediate, almost instinctive call for punitive action, for contempt proceedings, for something to unequivocally assert the dignity of the court. Yet, the Supreme Court, for its part, chose a different path entirely.

It happened, or rather, was brought to the Court’s attention, during a hearing on a rather mundane matter – a plea from the Supreme Court Bar Association, simply requesting the use of the CJI’s court for urgent mentioning of cases. And it was in this seemingly ordinary context that senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the SCBA, shared the details of the shocking incident, urging the bench to take action. You could almost feel the collective intake of breath, the anticipation of a sharp, decisive judicial retort.

But Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, presiding over the bench, had a rather unexpected perspective. Justice Gavai, with a remarkable calm, simply asked: “Let it die its natural death. Why should we give any importance to it?” A question, honestly, that makes you pause and think. He even referenced a similar, albeit earlier, occurrence, where a shoe was hurled at then-CJI S.H. Kapadia, an incident that involved advocate Prashant Bhushan. And, as Justice Gavai pointed out, no action was taken then. So, why now? What good would come of it?

It’s a fascinating approach, isn't it? One that perhaps prioritizes the long-term tranquility and perceived magnanimity of the institution over the immediate gratification of punishment. It suggests a judiciary confident enough in its own stature not to be rattled, not to be drawn into a spectacle that might, in truth, grant the provocative act more significance than it ever deserved. In a world often quick to react, to amplify, to condemn, the Supreme Court, for once, opted for quiet dismissal. And perhaps, just perhaps, that’s a powerful statement in itself.