Amid the ongoing national debate over alleged judicial overreach, Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud’s successor, Justice BR Gavai, subtly called out a protocol lapse during his first official visit to his home state of Maharashtra after assuming office. In a pointed yet restrained address, he highlighted the absence of top state officials at a felicitation event in Mumbai, indirectly reminding the Executive of the need for institutional respect.
Speaking at a ceremony organised by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, Chief Justice Gavai remarked on the conspicuous absence of Maharashtra’s Chief Secretary, the Director General of Police (DGP), and the Mumbai Police Commissioner. His remarks were seen as a veiled reminder of the need for inter-institutional decorum.
“The three pillars of democracy—Judiciary, Legislature, and Executive—are equal. Every constitutional institution must reciprocate and show respect to others. When someone from Maharashtra becomes the Chief Justice of India and visits the state for the first time, if the Chief Secretary, DGP, or the Police Commissioner are not present, then perhaps it's time for them to reflect on that,” he said.
“Protocol is not a novelty. It is about the respect one constitutional authority shows to another,” he added.
CJI Gavai also pointed out that had judges ignored such protocol norms, there would have been immediate public outcry. “If we had breached protocol, there would have been heated debates over Article 142,” he said, referring to the constitutional provision that grants wide-ranging powers to the Supreme Court. “These might seem like minor issues, but the public deserves to be aware of them,” he asserted.
Later in the day, when Justice Gavai visited Chaitya Bhoomi—the memorial of Dr B.R. Ambedkar—the previously absent top officials, including Chief Secretary Sujata Saunik, DGP Rashmi Shukla, and Mumbai Police Commissioner Deven Bharti, were seen in attendance. The sudden presence of these officials was widely interpreted as a response to the Chief Justice's earlier remarks.
When asked about the incident, Chief Justice Gavai downplayed it, saying he was "not fussy about protocols" and had merely stated the facts.
The Chief Justice's remarks, especially his reference to Article 142, gained greater significance in light of recent allegations of judicial overreach following the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in a case from Tamil Nadu. The ruling set a deadline for Governors and the President to act on Bills passed by legislatures for the second time, raising concerns in the executive.
In response, President Droupadi Murmu wrote to the Supreme Court seeking clarity. She posed critical constitutional questions, including whether a Governor is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers when presented with a Bill under Article 200 of the Constitution, and whether timelines and procedures could be judicially imposed under Article 201.
The President also cited Article 361, which protects the President and Governors from being answerable to any court for the exercise of their constitutional powers, and questioned whether such discretion could be made justiciable.
The constitutional friction escalated following an April judgment by Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, who invoked Article 142 to break a deadlock between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor RN Ravi over a set of 10 Bills. The court declared the Governor's refusal to act on the Bills as "illegal and arbitrary" and underscored that the President must consult the courts on matters of constitutional interpretation.
Also Read: Justice BR Gavai sworn in as 52nd CJI, to serve for 6 months
The bench stated that while courts usually maintain a self-imposed restraint on purely political matters under the doctrine of the “political thicket,” certain exceptional cases—such as those questioning the constitutional validity of legislation—demand judicial scrutiny. In such instances, it said, the executive should not overstep by interpreting constitutional issues, and should instead refer the matter to the Supreme Court under Article 143.
“We have no qualms in stating that the hands of the executive are tied when engaging with purely legal issues in a bill, and only the constitutional courts have the prerogative to determine its constitutionality,” the judgment noted.
The ruling triggered sharp political reactions. BJP MP Nishikant Dubey lashed out at the court, questioning whether the Supreme Court could direct the President—who is responsible for appointing the Chief Justice. He went on to accuse the court of overstepping its mandate, even alleging that it was inciting religious discord.
“The Supreme Court is exceeding its limits. If we are to run everything through the court, why have Parliament or State Assemblies?” he said. The BJP, however, quickly distanced itself from Dubey’s remarks, affirming its respect for the Judiciary.
While the Supreme Court refused to entertain a contempt petition against Dubey, it described his comments as “highly irresponsible” and “attention-seeking,” while emphasising that the Judiciary was not “fragile as flowers.”
Also Read: ‘Jai Bhim’: CJI BR Gavai greets lawyers after taking oath
Follow us
