Opinion The attack on the CJI and the shadow of caste

The attack on the Chief Justice of India within the premises of the Supreme Court of India is a continuation of that normalisation. This is not just a breach of the decorum of the highest court but also a reminder of the casteist manifestation of hatred. While throwing the shoe at the CJI B R Gavai, the attacker shouted, “Sanatan ka apmaan nahi sahenge” (We will not tolerate the insult of Sanatan Dharma). Notably, the incident is linked to the Chief Justice’s earlier remark during the hearing of a plea related to the restoration of the Vishnu idol in the Khajuraho temple. The attacker, a lawyer, is no uneducated, uncouth fringe but a respected professional who knew the meaning of his actions.

This incident reveals that even the highest constitutional spaces reflect the deep-seated social prejudices of our society. The very presence of a Dalit Chief Justice unsettles the dominant forms of emotions. Justice Gavai’s presence on the bench itself upholds, at least symbolically, the promises of the Constitution, wherein equality and dignity transcend multiple socio-cultural barriers.

Ambedkar and the question of social legitimacy

Ambedkar’s analysis of caste as a “graded inequality” helps us to understand this event. For him, caste was not merely a social classification; it was a moral structure that legitimised the dehumanisation of the lower castes based on a divine sanction. This provides legitimacy to humiliate a fellow human if they do not belong to the sacred order. Manu’s opinion on the nature of punishment to be meted out to Sudras and Chandalas if they violate dharma is well-known. From Eklavya to Ambedkar to Justice Gavai, the same script is being followed. The lawyer who had the temerity to hurl a shoe in the Supreme Court was following his dharma as laid down by the scriptural authority, as only the privileged few have the legitimacy to speak on religion and other social issues. The act of throwing a shoe, itself perceived as a marker to humiliate the “other”, is not simply personal. It is structural, deeply rooted in a caste and ideological apparatus.

The public sphere and the politics of hurt sentiments

The nucleus of this incident, where the issue of religious hurt drove the dominant narratives and even the assailant, cannot be detached from our socio-cultural history. For centuries, the privileged and dominant groups have used the discourse of hurt to justify violence and discrimination against the “lower” castes. The increasing claims of “insult to Sanatan Dharma” work as a defence mechanism for the privileged caste groups to mobilise the moral and political system to physically and symbolically register their authority, incite violence and discipline other communities.

The throwing of the shoe is, in one sense, akin to flogging in the public sphere, used to justify intimidation.

For the ordinary citizen, the judiciary is the final court of appeal, embodying the hope that their rights and dignity will be protected. In the past decade, our society has become immune to the news of lynching, horrific gendered violence, brutal attacks on Dalits, tribals, minorities, etc. One needs to introspect as to why the social fabric of the Republic is so deeply ruptured. If the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is not safe while performing his professional duties, are we upholding the values of our constitutional democracy?

Sukumar is a Professor in Political Science, Department of Political Science, University of Delhi. He is the author of Caste Discrimination and Exclusion in Indian Universities: A Critical Reflection (Routledge). Vidyasagar is a fellow at the Faculty of Sociology, University of Bielefeld, Germany