The assailant, identified as Rakesh Kishore, confronted the bench after removing his footwear, shouting slogans that the Hindu faith would not be demeaned. The Court’s security swiftly intervened and restrained him before proceedings were derailed. Gavai reportedly maintained calm, telling courtroom officials and lawyers, “Don’t get distracted by all this. These things do not affect me.”
Modi, in a post on X, stated he had contacted Gavai, calling the act “utterly condemnable” and affirming there is “no place for such reprehensible acts” in society. He commended the justice’s composed reaction and said the attack had stirred anger across the country.
Kishore claimed he acted out of conviction, saying he bore "no regrets." He claimed that Gavai’s remark in a hearing on restoring a damaged Lord Vishnu idol — in which the justice suggested petitioners should pray to the deity, phrased as “go ask your deity” — provoked his response. The judge had earlier defended his statement, clarifying that respect for all religions is integral.
The Bar Council of India immediately suspended Kishore’s licence to practice, pending further inquiry. Senior advocates condemned his conduct, characterising it as contemptuous to the judiciary’s dignity. One former advocate general called it unprecedented in his decades of service, drawing parallels only to attacks by accused persons — not by members of the bar.
Political leaders across the spectrum reacted sharply. Congress accused the act of being an assault on the Constitution itself, with the Leader of the Opposition calling it “an assault on the dignity of our judiciary.” In Kerala, the state chief minister linked the attack to communal narratives, warning that such ideology fosters intolerance and can trigger violent lapses even in institutional settings.
Legal security experts warn the breach reflects deeper concerns about courtroom vulnerability and ideological outrage infiltrating even apex institutions. Past cases of courtroom disruption — including weapons brought into courtrooms in lower tribunals — underscore the urgency of reinforcing security protocols.
Gavai, before the session resumed, continued with hearing mentions, underscoring that the judiciary must not be deterred by threats or theatrics. His conduct drew praise from legal and civic quarters as a signal of institutional resilience under pressure.
The controversy over his “ask the deity” remark had already provoked public debate on judicial boundaries when addressing religiously sensitive petitions. His critics saw it as dismissive, while his defenders argued he was rejecting litigants’ overreach — insisting the Court could not substitute ritual or faith.
Within the Court’s premises, crackdowns on entry protocols and checks on identity credentials are expected to be reviewed, especially after reports that the assailant entered using a card issued to legal professionals. Meanwhile, the judiciary must grapple with how to balance openness with protection in an era of heightened symbolic protest and religious sentiment.