Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai on Tuesday expressed deep concern over the way oral observations made by judges during court proceedings are often misrepresented or taken out of context on social media platforms. His comments came a day after a dramatic incident in the Supreme Court when a lawyer, Rakesh Kishore, attempted to hurl a shoe at the Chief Justice during proceedings. The lawyer was immediately restrained by security personnel and escorted out of the courtroom. The outburst was reportedly triggered by the Chief Justice’s earlier remarks in a case involving the restoration of a Lord Vishnu idol at the Khajuraho Group of Monuments in Madhya Pradesh.
CJI raises alarm over distortion of judicial remarks on social media
During a hearing on service conditions, pay scales, and career progression of judicial officers, the Chief Justice shared a personal anecdote illustrating how even well-intended remarks can be distorted when they appear online. Referring to a previous hearing in the Dheeraj Mor vs High Court of Delhi case, CJI Gavai said he had once stopped his colleague, K. Vinod Chandran, from making certain oral observations to avoid misinterpretation.
“My learned brother (Justice K Vinod Chandran) had something to comment. I stopped him from expressing it when we were hearing the Dheeraj Mor case. Otherwise, on this social media, we do not know what will be reported. I requested my learned brother to restrict it only to my ears,” the CJI said.
His remark underscored a growing challenge faced by the judiciary in the age of real-time information dissemination, where oral remarks during hearings are often circulated widely and sometimes presented without context. Unlike formal judgments or written orders, oral observations made by judges are not always meant to reflect the final view of the court. However, once posted or shared online, they can easily be misunderstood, politicized, or weaponized to shape public narratives.
The CJI made the observation while presiding over a bench along with Justice Chandran in a hearing filed by the All India Judges Association. The bench referred the matter to a five-judge Constitution Bench for a wider deliberation on judicial officers’ service conditions. But beyond the legal substance of the case, the Chief Justice’s reflection highlighted the tension between judicial proceedings and their digital-age reception.
His comments also come at a time when several senior judges, including former Chief Justices, have cautioned against the potential dangers of sensationalism and partial reporting of court proceedings on digital platforms. The increasing speed with which snippets of courtroom conversations go viral can affect public perception of judicial neutrality and often distorts the nuance behind judicial reasoning.
The courtroom incident and the Lord Vishnu idol controversy
The concern over misrepresentation was amplified by the events of Monday, when an unprecedented act of dissent took place inside the Supreme Court. During a routine hearing, lawyer Rakesh Kishore attempted to hurl a shoe at the Chief Justice, reportedly upset with his remarks made last month regarding the restoration of an idol of Lord Vishnu at the Khajuraho temple complex. Security personnel immediately intervened, restrained him, and escorted him out of the courtroom.
Despite the disruption, the Chief Justice remained calm. He instructed court officials and security staff to “just ignore” the incident and allowed the lawyer to leave after issuing a warning. “Don’t get distracted by all this. We are not distracted. These things do not affect me,” he told the lawyers present in court, sitting alongside Justice Chandran, before seamlessly continuing with the day’s hearings.
As the lawyer was being removed, he shouted, “Sanatan ka apman nahi sahenge,” meaning “We will not tolerate any insult to Sanatan.” The outburst was linked to a previous hearing in which the CJI had dismissed a petition seeking intervention in the idol restoration case. During that hearing, while rejecting the plea as a “publicity interest litigation,” the CJI had remarked, “This is purely publicity interest litigation… Go and ask the deity himself to do something. If you are saying that you are a strong devotee of Lord Vishnu, then you pray and do some meditation.”
The remark, which was made in a light tone during the hearing, quickly circulated on social media and was widely criticized by certain groups who alleged that it was disrespectful to Hindu sentiments. This reaction, as the CJI later acknowledged, reflected precisely the risk of oral observations being misunderstood or deliberately distorted.
Addressing the issue later, CJI Gavai clarified that he respects all religions equally. “Someone told me the other day that the comments I made have been portrayed on social media in a certain manner… I respect all religions,” he said.
This episode has once again brought to the forefront the delicate balance between judicial communication, freedom of expression, and the responsibilities that come with the unprecedented power of digital platforms. Unlike written judgments, oral observations often occur spontaneously during hearings as judges engage with lawyers, explore arguments, or express preliminary impressions. When such remarks are reported without nuance, they can spark controversies and inflame public sentiment, as seen in this case.
The incident also highlights the increasing pressure on judges in the digital era. Courtrooms are no longer confined to the physical space of lawyers and litigants. With live reporting, tweets, and instant news updates, almost every word uttered in court can reach millions within minutes. This creates an environment where even routine remarks can be weaponized or used to target judges personally.
Judicial observers note that this development has led many judges to be more cautious in their language during hearings, which in turn may affect the free and robust exchange of ideas that is integral to judicial deliberation. The Chief Justice’s anecdote about stopping his colleague from making remarks shows the growing self-restraint that judges are forced to exercise in order to avoid controversy.
The Vishnu idol case itself had become a focal point for certain groups seeking to portray the judiciary as being insensitive to religious issues. Legal experts, however, point out that the court’s rejection of the petition was based on legal principles and not on any religious sentiment. By labeling the petition as “publicity interest litigation,” the bench was signaling its disapproval of attempts to use the judiciary as a platform for religious posturing or populist politics.
The incident also raises questions about security inside the Supreme Court. While the lawyer’s shoe-throwing attempt was unsuccessful and swiftly handled, it serves as a reminder of the heightened tensions around sensitive legal issues. The court’s calm handling of the situation, particularly the CJI’s decision not to press charges or escalate the matter, was widely noted. Legal commentators observed that his response helped de-escalate a potentially volatile situation and sent a message about judicial composure in the face of provocation.
The broader issue, however, remains the growing influence of social media in shaping narratives around the judiciary. In recent years, several court hearings—especially those related to politically sensitive issues—have seen oral remarks go viral, often stripped of their legal context. These remarks are then amplified by commentators, influencers, and sometimes political actors, turning legal proceedings into public spectacles.
The Chief Justice’s statement this week adds to a growing chorus of voices within the legal community urging for more responsible reporting of court proceedings. Many legal experts have suggested that media outlets and social media platforms should exercise greater caution and provide proper context when quoting judges. At the same time, some have proposed that the judiciary itself could adopt mechanisms, such as issuing official summaries of key hearings, to reduce misrepresentation.
This tension between open court principles and digital-age amplification is not unique to India. Courts in other democracies have also grappled with similar challenges, balancing transparency with the risk of distortion. But in India, where court hearings often attract immense public and political attention, the impact of viral courtroom remarks can be far more immediate and intense.
The Vishnu remark controversy and the subsequent shoe-throwing incident have therefore become more than just a momentary flashpoint. They have reopened the debate on how judicial speech is perceived and disseminated in a hyperconnected world, and how judges navigate their role in such an environment. As social media continues to reshape the contours of public discourse, the judiciary is increasingly confronted with the need to adapt its communication strategies without compromising the openness that is central to the justice system.
