NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday imposed a fine of ₹7,000 on an advocate for filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning an alleged breach of protocol during Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai’s first visit to his home state of Maharashtra on May 18—despite the CJI having already called for the matter to be put to rest.
A bench led by CJI Gavai heard the case, rejected the advocate’s request to withdraw the petition, and remarked that the PIL was filed purely to gain “cheap publicity” through media attention. The Court noted that this filing ignored the CJI’s May 20 appeal for closure on the issue.
The incident, until now limited to media reports, was formally documented in a judicial order by CJI Gavai. He recounted that upon arriving in Mumbai, he found the Chief Secretary, Director General of Police, and Mumbai Police Commissioner absent from the reception—prompting him to express displeasure at what he viewed as a protocol breach.
Clarifying that he did not seek personal attention, CJI Gavai said his concerns were about the respect owed to the office of the Chief Justice, a key constitutional post as head of one of the three organs of governance. His comments were meant to highlight the mutual respect that should exist among top officials of the executive, legislature, and judiciary.
Following his remarks, which later went viral on social media, the three officials in question met him at Chaitya Bhoomi—where he had gone to pay tribute to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar—offered formal apologies, and later saw him off at the airport. The CJI said the matter was considered closed after this.
However, as media coverage continued, the Supreme Court had issued a press release on May 18 stating:
“All concerned have already expressed regrets. The CJI has expressed that a trivial issue should not be blown out of proportion. CJI has requested everyone that the matter be given a quietus.”
Despite this appeal, the advocate went ahead and filed the PIL. When the CJI told him he was attempting to make “a mountain out of a molehill,” the petitioner sought to withdraw the case. The Court then asked about his experience in legal practice; upon learning that he had been practicing in the Supreme Court for seven years, the bench imposed a ₹7,000 fine.
The amount is to be used for providing legal aid to underprivileged litigants.
