Key Points

The Association described the act as "reprehensible" and expressed deep shock and dismay over what it called a serious breach of courtroom decorum and professional ethics.

In its statement, the SCBA asserted that the advocate's behaviour was not only inappropriate for an officer of the Court but also posed a direct challenge to the independence of the judiciary.

It emphasised that such actions erode public trust in the justice system and threaten the foundational respect that binds the Bench and the Bar.

The incident reportedly stemmed from reactions to Justice Gavai's remarks in the Khajuraho Vishnu Idol Restoration case, where he had called for respect across religious lines while rejecting misinterpretations. The SCBA stated that these remarks were irresponsibly distorted on social media, fueling misinformation and likely contributing to the outburst in the courtroom.

Despite the provocation, Justice Gavai maintained composure and continued to perform his duties with dignity.

The SCBA commended his restraint and reaffirmed its unwavering support for the Chief Justice and the entire judiciary, reiterating that judicial independence must be preserved at all costs.

The Association warned against any attempts to weaken the constitutional bond between the Bench and the Bar, describing both as essential pillars of the justice delivery system. It urged legal professionals to uphold the values of secularism, fraternity, and the rule of law, and to resist efforts that politicise or tarnish the judiciary's image.

The SCBA also criticised certain media outlets for sensationalising the incident and distorting judicial statements, particularly those related to the Khajuraho case. It accused such reporting of inciting public outrage and undermining the authority of the Court, labelling it as "predatory journalism" that disregards ethical standards.

In closing, the SCBA revealed that the advocate in question holds only temporary membership in the Association and confirmed that disciplinary action is under consideration. It reiterated that while freedom of expression is vital, it must be exercised with responsibility, especially by those who serve as officers of the Court.

- ANI