On May 23, the Supreme Court of India strongly criticized a public interest litigation (PIL) filed against Maharashtra officials over a minor protocol issue during Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai's visit to Mumbai.

A bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih dismissed the petition filed by lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi, stating that it was filed only for "cheap publicity" and held no real legal value.

Read also: Supreme Court Declares Maharashtra’s Zudpi Jungles as Protected Forests, Mandates Strict

"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 court stated.

Although the court acknowledged that the petitioner is a young lawyer with 7 years of experience, it still imposed a cost of ₹7,000, noting that he should have been more responsible. However, the bench refrained from imposing heavier penalties due to the petitioner’s relative inexperience.

CJI Gavai pointed out that he had already appealed for calm regarding the issue and clarified that the matter had been resolved. The officials had apologized and accompanied him on his return from Mumbai.

"We will dismiss with costs. This is just to get your name published in newspapers," said CJI Gavai to the petitioner’s lawyer.

Read also: Supreme Court Criticizes Indian Navy Over Denial of Permanent Commission to Woman JAG Officer

He further reminded the lawyer that as a Supreme Court practitioner, he should have read and respected the press note issued by the CJI’s office, which had requested that the issue not be exaggerated further.

The issue had emerged during the CJI’s first official visit to Mumbai on May 18, following his elevation as Chief Justice of India. The visit was part of a function organized by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. During this visit, CJI Gavai had publicly shared his disappointment that key officials like the Maharashtra Chief Secretary, Director General of Police, and Mumbai Police Commissioner did not meet him in accordance with protocol.

Soon after his comments became public and widely circulated in the media, the concerned officials personally met the CJI and expressed regret. They also ensured he was accompanied until he boarded his return flight. In an effort to settle the issue, the Supreme Court Registry had issued a press note requesting that the matter be put to rest.

Read also: "In Personal Liberty Cases, High Courts Must Act Swiftly": Supreme Court Grants Bail After 27

Despite this, the petitioner still went ahead and filed the PIL, seeking action under the All India Service Rules against these officials. The bench clarified that the CJI's concern was not personal treatment but about the dignity of the constitutional office.

"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 court stated.

Finally, in a strong closing remark, CJI BR Gavai advised the petitioner:

"Don't file such ill-advised petitions, you are necessarily bringing controversy to the CJI office."

This case serves as a reminder that frivolous PILs, especially those aiming for public attention, will not be tolerated by the Supreme Court, especially when efforts have already been made to resolve the issue peacefully.

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