A dramatic scene unfolded in the Supreme Court of India on Monday when a lawyer attempted to confront Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud’s colleague, Justice B.R. Gavai, during court proceedings.

According to Bar and Bench, the incident occurred during the routine mentioning of cases before a Bench led by CJI Gavai. According to sources present in court, the lawyer approached the dais and allegedly attempted to remove his shoe, appearing to prepare to throw it at the judge.

Security personnel stationed in the courtroom acted swiftly, intervening before any harm could occur and escorting the lawyer out of the courtroom.

As he was being removed, the lawyer was heard shouting, "Sanatan ka apmaan nahi sahenge" ("We will not tolerate the insult of Sanatan").

Justice Gavai, however, remained composed and directed the court to carry on. "Don't get distracted by all this. We are not distracted. These things do not affect me," he remarked, continuing with the day’s proceedings.

The incident appears to be linked to comments made by Justice Gavai during an earlier hearing concerning the restoration of a beheaded 7-foot idol of Lord Vishnu at Khajuraho. Dismissing the plea, he had remarked, “Go and ask the deity itself to do something now. You say you are a staunch devotee of Lord Vishnu. So go and pray now. It’s an archaeological site and ASI needs to give permission etc.”

The comment had sparked criticism on social media, with some alleging it was disrespectful towards religious sentiments.

Responding to the backlash in court days later, Justice Gavai clarified that, “I respect all religions,” expressing regret that his comments were misunderstood.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, came to the judge’s defence, stating that social media often fuels disproportionate outrage.

“There is Newton’s law which says every action has an equal reaction, but now every action has a disproportionate social media reaction, milord,” he said.

Despite the commotion, court proceedings resumed without further disruption, with the Chief Justice choosing to maintain focus on the matters at hand.