Former Chief Justice of India BR Gavai has said that the shoe-throwing incident directed at him inside the Supreme Court had no personal impact on him, stressing that the accusations labelling him “anti-Hindu” were entirely baseless. He explained that throughout his tenure, he remained guided by constitutional principles, secular values, and an unwavering commitment to upholding the law.
Gavai told India Today TV that forgiveness, not retaliation, shaped his response to the incident. Drawing from the values he learned growing up, he emphasised that “the majesty of law lies not in punishing someone but in forgiving someone.” He clarified that he had never insulted any religious belief. “I have been to temples, dargahs, mosques, gurudwaras and churches. I hold all religions in the highest esteem,” he said, dismissing claims that his earlier comments were disrespectful to Hindu sentiments.
Reflecting on the dramatic moment when a lawyer attempted to hurl a shoe at him while shouting slogans about “Sanatan Dharma”, Gavai said he was unaware at that moment that the act was linked to outrage over his “go and ask the deity itself” remark in the Vishnu idol restoration case. His decision to pardon the individual, he said, was instinctive and rooted in his personal principles.
He noted that the wave of online trolling that followed did not disturb him, since he felt morally at peace. However, he expressed concern that much of the online content was distorted or fabricated, saying he had seen “wrong and erroneous” reporting and even morphed material circulating widely.
After the incident, Gavai underlined the importance of exercising restraint in public comments, observing that even light-hearted or harmless remarks could be taken out of context and misinterpreted. As a result, he said he became “cautious” in his public statements.
Turning to wider judicial issues, Gavai firmly rejected claims that India’s judiciary functions under executive influence. “Indian judiciary is strong and independent,” he said, calling allegations of interference unfounded. He highlighted a recent judgment in which he struck down provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, for undermining judicial autonomy, reiterating that the independence of the judiciary remains a foundational element of the Constitution.
He stressed that in India’s constitutional scheme, neither Parliament nor the judiciary is supreme — the Constitution alone occupies that position, with clearly defined roles for all three branches of government. On the conduct of governors, he noted that constitutional courts retain a limited power of judicial review if bills are stalled, but cautioned that courts cannot assume the functions of legislatures.
Gavai also spoke out against “bulldozer justice”, insisting that no executive authority can override due process or the role of the courts. He emphasised that since assuming office, he had made a conscious decision not to accept any post-retirement government positions, arguing that this ensured complete independence in discharging his judicial duties.
On future plans, he unequivocally ruled out joining politics and said he would not accept a gubernatorial post or a Rajya Sabha nomination. He rejected allegations of bench-fixing in sensitive matters and stated that no government official had ever attempted to influence him regarding judicial appointments or transfers. He reaffirmed his support for the collegium system.
Overall, Gavai’s remarks combined a defence of his record, an appeal for restraint in public discourse, and a broader affirmation of the institutional independence of India’s judiciary.
