Ajeet Bharti is a right-wing YouTuber, political commentator, and self-styled journalist from Begusarai, Bihar. Known for his fiery criticism of the judiciary, media, and political establishment, Bharti has amassed over 7 lakh subscribers on YouTube and nearly 5 lakh followers on X (formerly Twitter).
On October 7, 2025, he became the focus of a nationwide storm after posting a controversial video about Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, just hours after a shoe was hurled at the Chief Justice inside the Supreme Court.
What Happened in the Supreme Court?
The controversy began on October 6, when 71-year-old lawyer Rakesh Kishore attempted to throw a shoe at CJI BR Gavai during a court hearing. Kishore shouted, “Sanatan ka apman nahi sahega Hindustan” — meaning “India will not tolerate the insult of Sanatan Dharma.”
The protest stemmed from CJI Gavai’s earlier remarks in a September hearing concerning the reinstatement of a Lord Vishnu idol in Khajuraho. While dismissing the plea, Gavai reportedly said, “Ask the deity himself to do something,” describing the case as a publicity-seeking petition. The remark triggered outrage among certain Hindu groups and social media influencers, who accused the Chief Justice of mocking Hindu beliefs.
Despite the shocking act, CJI Gavai remained calm and instructed court proceedings to continue. The Bar Council of India later suspended advocate Kishore’s license, calling his action “a direct assault on the judiciary.”
Prime Minister Narendra Modi condemned the attack, praising the CJI’s composure, while Sonia Gandhi termed it “an assault on the Constitution.”
Why Ajeet Bharti Got Involved
After the shoe incident, Ajeet Bharti posted a provocative video mocking CJI Gavai. In the clip, he smirked and commented:
“I wanted to make a video about shoes and the Chief Justice after seeing his shoes in a photo recently, but couldn’t. It seems shoes were sticking to him ever since!”
He further went on to call Justice Gavai “a lousy, undeserving judge”, claiming he should face a contempt case. The video also included remarks referencing the CJI’s Dalit-Ambedkarite background, which drew sharp backlash for being caste-insensitive and disrespectful.
As the clip spread rapidly across social media, Bharti released another video on X doubling down on his criticism, saying that the CJI had “disrespected Hindu sentiments.”
Was Ajeet Bharti Arrested or Detained?
Soon after the video went viral, rumours spread online that Ajeet Bharti had been arrested. However, police statements later clarified the situation.
According to reports from Jagran, News18, and Hindustan Times, Bharti was briefly taken to the Noida Sector-58 police station for questioning. His statements were recorded at the DCP Office (12/22 Outpost), but no formal arrest was made.
ADCP Sumit Shukla of Noida Police confirmed:
“Ajeet Bharti was not arrested. He was questioned and released. No complaint has been filed by the Supreme Court or the CJI’s office.”
Bharti himself also clarified on social media that “no arrest or custody happened.”
CJI Gavai’s Remarks on Hindu God and the Backlash
The entire controversy originates from CJI Gavai’s September 16 remark during a hearing on a plea seeking reconstruction of a beheaded Vishnu idol in Khajuraho. His statement — “Go and ask the deity himself to do something” — was intended humorously, referring to the Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI) jurisdiction over the matter.
However, certain right-wing voices, including Bharti, took the comment as mocking a Hindu deity, framing it as an example of “judicial bias against Hinduism.”
Later, CJI Gavai clarified that he meant no disrespect toward any religion and respected all faiths equally.
“These things do not affect me,” he said in court, appealing to advocates to remain focused on their professional responsibilities.
Who Was the Lawyer Who Threw the Shoe?
The lawyer identified as Rakesh Kishore, aged 71, told reporters he had “no remorse” for his act. He said he was deeply hurt by the CJI’s remarks on Lord Vishnu and felt it was his duty to protest.
Kishore was released after questioning since no official complaint was filed by the CJI or the Supreme Court office. The Bar Council of India, however, suspended his license for misconduct and bringing disrepute to the profession.
Public Reaction and Political Response
The incident and Bharti’s subsequent remarks triggered a fierce online debate.
Supporters of Ajeet Bharti hailed him as a “voice of truth,” defending his right to free speech.
Critics, including several legal experts, accused him of inciting disrespect toward the judiciary and exploiting religious sentiments for attention.
Prominent leaders from both the ruling and opposition parties condemned the shoe-throwing act, emphasizing that judicial independence must remain sacrosanct.
Legal Implications
While the Noida Police have not filed an FIR yet, the investigation into Ajeet Bharti’s online remarks remains open. Authorities stated that they are monitoring social media posts to determine whether his content violates provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or the Information Technology Act related to hate speech or contempt.
Legal experts note that criticism of judges is permissible under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution (freedom of speech), as long as it does not cross into contempt or incitement.
FAQs
Q1. Was Ajeet Bharti arrested by Noida Police?
No. Bharti was briefly questioned but not arrested or detained.
Q2. Why did a lawyer throw a shoe at the Chief Justice?
The lawyer, Rakesh Kishore, was angered by the CJI’s remark in the Lord Vishnu idol case, which he perceived as disrespectful.
Q3. What exactly did the CJI say that caused outrage?
He jokingly said, “Ask the deity himself to do something now,” while dismissing a petition. Some groups misinterpreted this as mocking the Hindu faith.
Q4. How did Ajeet Bharti react?
He mocked the CJI in a video, calling him an “undeserving judge” and linking the shoe incident to him in a sarcastic tone.
Q5. What is the current status of the case?
No FIR has been registered. Bharti has been released, and the police clarified that further action will depend on legal review.
