POLITICS CJI Gavai Object Throwing Incident Albert October 6, 2025 0 Comments

100 Years of RSS Criticism | Manickam Tagore on Lawyer’s Attempt to Throw Object at CJI Gavai

So, here’s the thing: news broke recently about a lawyer attempting to throw an object at Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud – or, as some reports say, CJI Gavai. And naturally, the political pot is already boiling. Manickam Tagore, a prominent Congress leader, has linked the incident to 100 years of RSS criticism. But, what’s the real story here? What are the deeper currents flowing beneath this seemingly isolated event? Let’s unpack this, shall we?

The Incident | What Actually Happened?

First, let’s be clear: reports are still somewhat conflicting. Some outlets describe the object as a file, others as something else entirely. What we do know is that a lawyer, allegedly agitated about a case, attempted to hurl something in the direction of the CJI Gavai . Security intervened immediately. The courtroom drama was, thankfully, short-lived. But the ripples… those are still spreading.

Here’s where it gets interesting. Manickam Tagore didn’t just condemn the act. He framed it within the context of sustained criticism against the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) over the past century. It’s a bold claim, suggesting a direct line between historical opposition to the RSS and this individual act of aggression. Is it a fair connection? That’s the million-dollar question.

Why Tagore’s Statement Matters

Tagore’s statement throws gasoline on an already smoldering fire. The RSS, a Hindu nationalist organization, has always been a lightning rod for controversy. Accusations of promoting Hindu supremacy, intolerance, and even violence have dogged them for decades. Here’s the thing: whether those accusations are accurate is beside the point. The perception of them is what fuels much of the opposition. And that’s where things get tricky.

Linking the CJI Gavai object throwing incident to 100 years of RSS criticism implies that the lawyer’s actions were, in some way, a consequence of this historical opposition. It suggests that the lawyer was motivated by anti-RSS sentiment, driven to a desperate act by what he perceives as the organization’s negative influence. This is a HUGE claim and needs a very critical look. Especially when considering the sensitivities around judicial independence and public perception.

RSS Criticism | A Century of Dissent

Let’s be honest, criticizing the RSS isn’t new. Since its inception in 1925, the organization has faced opposition from various groups, including secularists, socialists, and minority rights advocates. These criticisms range from the RSS’s alleged role in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi (an accusation they vehemently deny) to concerns about their views on religious minorities and social justice. The organization has also been criticised for its rigid hierarchical structure and lack of internal democracy. This historical backdrop is important to understand Tagore’s perspective, regardless of whether you agree with him or not.

And, the RSS ideology is constantly evolving. Their views on things have changed over time. For example, some scholars argue that the RSS has, in recent years, attempted to broaden its appeal and project a more inclusive image. But, their critics remain unconvinced, pointing to what they see as continued evidence of exclusionary and divisive rhetoric. As per the guidelines, it’s important to keep in mind this nuanced debate when evaluating any claims linking specific actions to the organization’s broader history. Learn more about RSS

The Implications for the Judiciary

Here’s where things get truly serious. The Indian judiciary, like any judicial system in a democracy, relies on public trust and respect. Any act of violence, or attempted violence, against a judge – especially the Chief Justice – is a direct attack on the rule of law. It doesn’t matter why the lawyer did it; the act itself is unacceptable. It’s a blatant attempt to intimidate the judiciary and undermine its authority. This is why the attempt to throw object at CJI Gavai is more than just a courtroom outburst; it’s a threat to the very foundations of our legal system.

The incident also raises questions about security protocols within the courts. How was someone able to bring an object into the courtroom that could be used as a weapon? What steps are being taken to prevent similar incidents in the future? These are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed to ensure the safety of judges, lawyers, and the public.

Navigating the Noise | What’s the Takeaway?

The legal profession is a noble one and advocates should not resort to violence. A common mistake I see people make is jumping to conclusions based on incomplete information or political bias. The truth is almost always more complicated than the headlines suggest. We need to resist the urge to oversimplify and demonize. We need to engage in reasoned debate, even when we disagree. Only then can we hope to build a more just and equitable society.

According to sources , the Supreme Court Bar Association is already investigating the matter and will determine the punishment to be meted out to the advocate.

Let’s rephrase that for clarity: The incident involving advocate throwing object at CJI demands a balanced perspective. We must condemn violence while acknowledging the complex historical and political context in which it occurred. We need to hold individuals accountable for their actions while also addressing the underlying grievances and tensions that fuel such acts of desperation. It’s a tall order, but it’s the only way forward. And, we have to ensure judicial independence.

Ultimately, the incident serves as a stark reminder of the challenges facing Indian democracy. As Manickam Tagore rightly stated, it’s imperative to foster a culture of respect for the rule of law and to promote dialogue and understanding across ideological divides.

Sir Creek Dispute