Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Friday (May 23) came down heavily on a petitioner who filed a PIL seeking action against Maharashtra officials for their protocol lapse during the visit of the Chief Justice of India to Mumbai last week.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih dismissed the petition filed by lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi, observing that it was a "publicity interest litigation" filed for "cheap publicity"

"We highly deprecate such a practice. We are of the considered view that everybody concerned should not make a mountain out of a molehill," the bench observed in the order. Since the petitioner was a young lawyer with 7 years of practice, the bench refrained from imposing heavy costs. The petitioner was asked to pay a cost of Rs 7000.

CJI BR Gavai said that when he himself had appealed to everyone not to blow the trivial issue out of proportion, as the officials had expressed apologies, there was no reason for the petitioner to file the petition.

"We will dismiss with costs. This is just to get your name published in newspapers. If you are a lawyer practising in the Supreme Court, you should have given attention to the press note issued by the CJI," CJI BR Gavai told the petitioner's counsel at the outset.

The issue arose during CJI Gavai's first visit to Mumbai on May 18 after becoming the CJI for a function organised by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. During the visit, CJI Gavai expressed unhappiness over the fact that the Maharashtra Chief Secretary, Director General of Police or the Mumbai City Police Commissioner did not meet him as per protocol.

CJI Gavai observed in the order that soon after his public statements, the officials came to meet him and expressed apologies. After that, they accompanied him till he boarded the return flight.

However, after news reports about the CJI's speech became viral, CJI directed the Registry to issue a press note, requesting that the matter be put at rest as the officials have expressed regret. Despite that, the petition was filed seeking action against the said officials as per the All India Service Rules, the bench noted today.

"It is thus clear that the CJI has expressed that trivial issue should not be blown out of proportion and requested everyone to give a quietus. To make it clear, the CJI was not concerned about the treatment given to him as an individual, but was only concerned with the dignity of the office of the CJI as the head of one of the organs of democracy," the bench observed in the order.

After the matter was dismissed, CJI told the lawyer, "Don't file such ill-advised petitions, you are necessarily bringing controversy to the CJI office."

Case : SHAILENDRA MANI TRIPATHI VS. UNION OF INDIA | DIARY NO. - 28817/2025