'Cheap publicity': SC slams plea over CJI Gavai's Maharashtra visit

Supreme Court dismisses PIL seeking probe into protocol breach during CJI BR Gavai's Maharashtra visit, calling it a 'cheap publicity' stunt and imposing ₹7,000 cost on petitioner

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a probe into an alleged breach of protocol during Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai’s first visit to his home state Maharashtra on May 18, calling it a case of "publicity interest litigation" aimed at gaining “cheap publicity”.

 

The plea, filed against senior Maharashtra government officials for their absence during a felicitation event for the CJI, drew sharp criticism from the Bench led by CJI Gavai himself. The court also imposed a cost of ₹7,000 on the petitioner.

 

'Apologies made, matter should have ended'

 

During the hearing, the court noted that following CJI Gavai’s remarks at the public event, the named officials rushed to meet him at a subsequent venue, where he paid tribute to BR Ambedkar. The officials later accompanied the CJI to the airport and offered personal apologies. Several others also issued public statements of regret. 

 

 

"Not only did the concerned officers tender their apologies in person, but several others issued public apologies as well. The matter should have ended there," the Bench remarked, expressing disapproval at the continuation of litigation despite these reconciliatory efforts.

 

CJI's remarks on constitutional respect

 

At the May 18 event, CJI Gavai had publicly voiced his disappointment over the absence of key state dignitaries, including Maharashtra’s chief secretary, director general of police, and Mumbai police commissioner.

 

"We say that there are three pillars of democracy — judiciary, legislature, and executive — and that they are equal. Every organ of the Constitution must reciprocate and give its due respect to the other organs. A person from Maharashtra is coming to the state as Chief Justice of India for the first time. If these officials do not feel it necessary to come, it is for them to think about," the CJI had said.   

 

'Not about personal treatment, but office dignity’

 

While addressing the issue in court, the CJI clarified that his concern was not personal, but institutional. “Even then, such small issues should not be blown out of proportion,” the court observed.

 

In its order dismissing the petition, the Bench strongly deprecated the tendency to pursue unnecessary litigation for the sake of public attention. “We highly deprecate such practices,” it said.

 

(With agency inputs)