The Supreme Court on Friday curtly dismissed a Public Interest Litigation that sought disciplinary action against Maharashtra officials for failing to follow official protocol during the Chief Justice of India’s recent visit to Mumbai—branding the move a shameless grab for attention.
A bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai, joined by Justice AG Masih, minced no words as it tore into the PIL, calling it a “cheap publicity” stunt that aimed to turn a non-issue into headlines.
“We highly deprecate such a practice,” the bench declared. “Not every molehill deserves a mountain.”
The PIL had been filed by lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi, who wanted the court to take action under the All India Service Rules against state officials who didn’t receive the CJI upon arrival in Mumbai on May 18. The officials—Maharashtra’s Chief Secretary, the DGP, and the Mumbai Police Commissioner—had not shown up, which was widely perceived as a breach of standard protocol.
But CJI Gavai had already addressed the issue publicly and personally. After his remarks sparked media buzz, the concerned officials promptly met him and offered apologies. The matter, Gavai noted, was laid to rest with a press statement from the Supreme Court Registry urging calm.
Despite that, Tripathi pressed ahead with the PIL. The court wasn’t impressed.
“This is just to get your name published in newspapers,” CJI Gavai told Tripathi’s counsel pointedly. “If you practise in the Supreme Court, you ought to have paid attention to the press note.”
Acknowledging Tripathi’s relative inexperience—he has seven years of practice—the bench opted not to impose a heavy penalty. Still, it slapped a cost of ₹7,000 on him to signal its disapproval.
“This was never about personal hurt,” the bench emphasized. “The Chief Justice wasn’t offended as an individual. His concern was only with the dignity of the office he holds—nothing more.”
In a final word of caution, the CJI offered the young lawyer some unsolicited advice: “Don’t file such ill-advised petitions. All you’re doing is dragging the judiciary into needless controversy.”