New Delhi – A shocking shoe-throwing incident targeting Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai in the Supreme Court has ignited explosive debates: Was this brazen attack fueled by caste prejudice against India's first Dalit CJI? Or is it a symptom of deeper societal rot? In an NDTV interview, senior advocate and Congress MP Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi delivers a nuanced takedown, partially endorsing the "sign of our times" narrative while slamming reductive caste spins and calling for universal condemnation. "It is not about an individual... It is about the very institution," he asserts, urging India to shun sensationalism and reclaim judicial sanctity amid rising divisiveness.

Singhvi's Verdict: Condemn Unconditionally, But Don't Over-Psychoanalyze

Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, one of India's most formidable legal minds, wasted no time in framing the assault as an existential threat to democracy's third pillar. "I don't think we must go into too much of psychoanalysis because the first point I wish to make is that it is not about an individual, about Judge A, Judge B, Chief Justice X, Chief Justice Y," Singhvi emphasized. "It is about the very institution of a third pillar of democracy, and that symbolism is very serious when you attack it at the base."

His condemnation was absolute: "So it must be condemned unequivocally, universally, without ifs and buts, without ideology, without any conditionality, because it strikes at the root of the very concept of holding this institution above all kinds of partisan issues in politics. That's the larger issue." Singhvi's outrage intensified when spotlighting the perpetrator's profession. "It is bad enough and terrible for any human being to do it. But according to me, it's inexcusable in any manner for a lawyer to even think of doing it," he thundered. Lawyers, bound by "rules and regulations," must never blur professional duty with personal crusades. "See, lawyers should never identify with a cause or an issue beyond their professional obligation... So I think that really compounds the felony 100 times over."

Turning to CJI Gavai's poise, Singhvi hailed it as exemplary. "I commend, I have done so in my tweets, that you know, calmness under tension under pressure is a very special trait," he said. Drawing from the CJI's track record in navigating "tension, shouting, altercation, adversarial allegations," Singhvi was unsurprised. "I'm not at all surprised because Chief Justice has shown that in many other diverse situations... In a sudden atmosphere, not to do any knee-jerk reaction, not to go off the handle, is something quite remarkable."

For the agitator seeking infamy, Singhvi prescribed the sharpest antidote: oblivion. In a nod to his lighter tweet, he quipped, "The biggest punishment you can give such people is to not give them too much attention. To ignore you is the biggest punishment for a terrorist or for a person who's a sensationalist criminal or for a person who wants drama on candid camera." He clarified: "Ignorance doesn't mean that you don't punish them, but to ignore you is a very big punishment which should be meted out to him by everybody. Don't give him importance. Don't psychoanalyze it." This, he argued, starves the "headline hunter" of oxygen.

The Caste Question: 'Partly Agree, Partly Don't' – A Sign of Divisive Times?

At the heart of the uproar is the persistent claim that CJI Gavai's Dalit heritage, marking a historic milestone as the first from Scheduled Castes to lead the apex court, made him a target. Pundits and activists portray it as proof of systemic bias, a "Dalit Chief Justice" under siege in a nation still grappling with caste fault lines. Singhvi, ever the balanced jurist, offered a measured response: "I partly agree and partly don't agree with that."

He conceded the era's toxicity: "I agree that anybody who does this thing is motivated by his own self-centered eccentric view of some issue. Clearly, here was a person who brought religion into it. At least his utterances show that." Yet, he rebuffed hasty profiling. "But I would not like to paint it that look, I'm a Hindu shouting, another eccentric crazy coot is shouting Buddhism, a third one is shouting Islam. It doesn't matter because such people could have different variations of this. The real thing is that there is something which is you know at the back of their mind which is unhinged which is irrational."

Where Singhvi aligned with critics was in diagnosing the societal pulse. "And the part I think is right is it is the sign of our times. Unfortunate, but our times have become very much more divisive. Our times have become very much more confrontational. Our times have become very much more you're either black or you're white. There are no shades of gray." He lamented the erosion of nuance: "Real life is all about gray... Our times have become very much if you're not with me 100%, you are my enemy, and that's a ridiculous thought but that's the way the society is divided."

Fueling the fire are allegations of orchestration by the ruling BJP or its "right-wing ecosystem," with some suggesting the government indirectly stoked the flames through divisive rhetoric. Singhvi shut this down firmly: "I have never said anything like that. To say that he's backed by the government would be outlandish... Governments commit blunders, every government does, and so has this government but it would be blunderous beyond blunder to think that they have set up a man like this to do this."

That said, he didn't absolve the powers-that-be. "I mean, it would really... I think what is meant is that you have created an ambiance of inhibition, intolerance, anger, divisiveness, distrust nothing to do with the government, nothing to do with this particular man. But overall ambiance is a creation in this country for the last several years, and that ambiance somewhere can lead to things like that." He implored vigilance: "That doesn't mean the government is setting him up. But it certainly means that the government should be very careful of the ambiance it creates in different situations of intolerance... That obsessive sense of uniformity, imposing identity, oneness, not India is should be proud to be planet Earth's most diverse spot; there is no more diverse spot on planet earth than India."

Pushing for pluralism, Singhvi critiqued imposed homogeneity: "So to have an idea of just oneness in everything, oneness in thought, oneness in religion, oneness in dress, habit, smell, talk, eating. These are not concepts which are truly Indian according to me, and therefore somewhere they lead to some unhinged crazy like this person."