|
The Supreme Court on Friday imposed a cost of Rs 7,000 on a petitioner who filed a PIL (public interest litigation) plea over protocol issues in connection with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai's first visit to his native state of Maharashtra after he took office as CJI.
A bench led by the Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai, deprecated the practice of filing such a plea and observed that it was nothing but a "publicity interest litigation" filed to gain "cheap publicity." The plea had been filed seeking directions to the Union of India and the State of Maharashtra to conduct a preliminary inquiry over the breach of the petition and misconduct on the part of the senior state officials who remained absent while the CJI visited his native state. During the said visit at a felicitation event organised in his honour on May 18, the CJI had expressed displeasure over the absence of senior state officials stating that each Constitutional organ must reciprocate and give its due respect to the other organs. "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 Maharashtra's chief secretary, the state's director general of police or the Mumbai commissioner of police do not feel it necessary to come, it is for them to think about", the CJI had said. During today's hearing, the court noted that after the CJI's speech at a public function went viral, in which he subtly 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 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. Despite these gestures, the petitioner had chosen to pursue litigation, the CJI noted. "We highly deprecate such practices. The CJI himself made it clear that he was not concerned about personal treatment, but about upholding the dignity of the office he holds. Even then, he advised that such small issues should not be blown out of proportion," the court said before dismissing the plea. (ANI)
|
