E-Paper
‘Cheap publicity’: Supreme Court junks PIL over protocol breach during CJI Gavai's Maharashtra visit
On May 18, during a felicitation event, the CJI had expressed displeasure over the absence of senior officials of the state.
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking an inquiry into the breach of protocol for Justice BR Gavai on his first visit as Chief Justice of India to his home state Maharashtra on May 18.
A bench led by Justice BR Gavai, deprecated the practice of filing such a plea, imposing a cost of ₹7,000 on the petitioner and observed that it was nothing but a “publicity interest litigation" filed in order to gain “cheap publicity".
The plea was filed seeking directions to the Union of India and the state of Maharashtra to conduct a preliminary inquiry over the misconduct on the part of senior state officials who remained absent while the CJI visited his native state.
On May 18, during the visit at a felicitation event, the CJI had expressed displeasure over the absence of senior officials of the state, saying that “each Constitutional organ must reciprocate and give due respect to the other organs".
He also highlighted that if a person is coming to the native state as Chief Justice of India for the first time, Maharashtra's chief secretary, the state's director general of police and Mumbai police commissioner should think about if it's necessary to come.
Court observed ‘matter should have ended'
During the hearing, the Supreme Court noted that after the CJI's speech at a public function went viral, in which he remarked on the absence of senior government officials, those named in the plea rushed to meet him at the venue he had visited next, where he had gone to pay tribute to Dr BR Ambedkar, The Times of India reported.
The officials later also accompanied the CJI to the airport and apologised for the lapse.
"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 noted. Further the bench added that despite this, the petitioner had chosen to pursue the litigation and highly deprecate such practices.
CJI BR Gavai made it clear that while he was not concerned about his personal treatment, upholding the dignity of the office is very significant. “Even then, such small issues should not be blown out of proportion,” the court said before dismissing the plea.
