CJI Gavai protocol snub triggers political uproar in Maharashtra
Nagpur: The absence of top Maharashtra officials on Sunday during Chief Justice of India Bhushan Gavai's first visit to his home state after taking charge has sparked a political firestorm.
Senior leaders across Opposition parties accused the BJP-led govt of disrespecting both judicial protocol and the Ambedkarite legacy.
Facing mounting backlash, Maharashtra revenue minister Chandrashekhar Bawankule on Monday admitted to the lapse and said he had personally apologised to Justice Gavai. "He is the pride of Maharashtra and Vidarbha. Officials should have followed the protocol, but they didn't.
The chief minister has taken cognisance, and such incidents won't recur. The CJI has a big heart, and I'm sure he'll forgive us," Bawankule told reporters.
Congress Legislature Party leader Vijay Wadettiwar raised questions about the nature of the oversight, asking on social media, "Was this an administrative lapse or a reflection of contempt for the judiciary?" Senior Congress leader Nana Patole suggested the omission may have been ideological, asking whether the snub stemmed from Gavai's Ambedkarite background.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Memperdagangkan CFD Emas dengan salah satu spread terendah?
IC Markets
Mendaftar
Undo
"Why was protocol ignored for someone from the Ambedkarite tradition? Was this politically motivated," he asked.
Former home minister and senior NCP leader Anil Deshmukh called the episode "deeply regrettable," stating that the failure to offer official courtesy dishonoured a son of the soil who now heads India's judiciary. "This doesn't reflect well on a progressive state," he said.
Ambadas Danve, leader of opposition in the Legislative Council from Shiv Sena (UBT), alleged the govt not only ignored Gavai but also failed to arrange an official vehicle.
"Was this because he said the Constitution is above both executive and judiciary," he asked. Danve warned against viewing the judiciary through a political lens, saying, "They've disrespected opposition leaders before. Now, even the Chief Justice is not spared.
"
Speaking at a felicitation event in Mumbai on Sunday, organised by Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, CJI Gavai remarked that "When the head of an institution visits his own state for the first time after assuming office, one must reflect on whether the treatment meted out was appropriate," he said. Though he noted that he wasn't insisting on protocol, the comment was widely viewed as a rebuke. Following sustained criticism, the chief secretary, DGP, and Mumbai police commissioner met with Justice Gavai at the airport and formally apologised, acknowledging the breach.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
31 minutes ago
- Indian Express
33% seat reservation: Govt looks at quota for women in next Lok Sabha polls
The Modi government intends to roll out reservation of seats for women, which is linked to the delimitation exercise, in the 2029 Lok Sabha elections, highly-placed sources said Wednesday. Official sources said the government is targeting implementation of the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam that reserves one-third of seats for women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies in the next election. 'The Census has been announced and the other steps will follow. The women's reservation Bill is linked to the delimitation process. We are aiming to roll it out in the next election,' sources in the government said. According to the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Eighth Amendment) Bill, 2023, the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam, passed in September 2023, reservation of one-third of seats for women in Lok Sabha and state Assemblies shall come into effect after an exercise of delimitation is undertaken based on figures from the first Census that is conducted after the enactment of the Act. Earlier this month, the government announced that the process of data collection for the Census, along with caste enumeration, would commence next year and offer a snapshot of the country's population as on March 1, 2027. For women's reservation to become a reality in the next Lok Sabha elections, delimitation will have to be completed well in time for the Election Commission of India to conduct the 2029 polls on the basis of the new delimitation of constituencies. Government sources claimed that the Census data will be available faster than the previous time with the advancement of technology – the enumeration will be conducted digitally using mobile applications for data collection and a central portal to collate the details and manage it. The Census data is significant for delimitation because the process of readjusting the seats of Lok Sabha and state Assemblies and redrawing their territorial boundaries is expected to be launched once the data is available. There have been concerns among southern states regarding delimitation changing the proportion of seats allocated to various states in Lok Sabha to conform to the constitutional principle of 'one person, one vote, one value', which will lead to a jump in seats for the northern states where populations have grown briskly since 1971 and reduce the relative weight of southern states where the population rate has slowed down in the same period. Senior ministers have said that the concerns expressed by the southern states will be addressed, and that no room for complaints will be left. In February this year, Union Home Minister Amit Shah had said that the southern states would not lose even a single seat on a pro-rata basis, making A Raja of the DMK ask whether pro-rata meant population-based or based on the present number of constituencies. Later, at the RSS's Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha meet at Bengaluru, RSS joint general secretary K Mukunda said the share of seats of the southern states would be maintained as it is in case the number of Lok Sabha seats is increased via delimitation. However, NDA ally Upendra Kushwaha has already made 'justice for Bihar', through allocation of seats as per present population share, as a poll plank for the Bihar Assembly elections, taking the line multiple times in Bihar and Delhi. For delimitation to happen after the next Census, Parliament will have to pass a Delimitation Act, which will constitute a Delimitation Commission for the exercise that is likely to lead to an increase in Lok Sabha seats. Article 82 of the Constitution mandates readjustment of seats after every Census. However, the present Lok Sabha reflects the population figures of the 1971 Census because the delimitation of seats was frozen in 1976 for 25 years, and in 2001 for another 25 years, through Constitutional amendments, with the Vajpayee government stating in 2002 that this would provide an incentive for family planning. If another Constitutional amendment is not passed by Parliament by 2026, the freeze on delimitation will automatically be over. Under Article 81(2) (a) of the Constitution, 'there shall be allotted to each State a number of seats in the House of the People in such manner that the ratio between that number and the population of the state is, so far as practicable, the same for all States'. The only exception to this rule are small states whose population do not exceed six million.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
U.P. govt suppressed Maha Kumbh death toll, says Rahul Gandhi, cites BBC report
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday (June 11, 2025) cited a BBC report to allege that the number of people who died in stampedes during the Maha Kumbh was suppressed by the Uttar Pradesh government and accused the BJP of having no accountability. "BBC report reveals that figures of deaths in Kumbh Mela stampede were hidden. Like in COVID, the bodies of the poor were erased from the statistics. Like after every major railway accident the truth is suppressed," he said in a post on X. "This is the BJP model - if there is no counting of the poor, then there is no accountability either!" the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha said. On Tuesday, Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav cited the same media report to accuse the Uttar Pradesh government of lying about the death toll in the January 29 Maha Kumbh stampede and said that those who provide "false statistics" are not worthy of public trust. Mr. Yadav made the remarks in a post on X, citing a BBC report which claimed that 82 people died in the stampede. The toll is significantly higher than the official figure of 37.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Dear Editor, I disagree: Not all speech is free
The constitutional right to free speech — a fundamental democratic principle — is often misinterpreted. The editorial ('Whose free speech?', IE, June 3) circumvents the context, intent and impact of free speech by defending Sharmistha Panoli's inflammatory social media post, targeting Islam and the Prophet, as a legitimate exercise of free expression. An important disclaimer: My disagreement with the editorial is not a defence or endorsement of the carceral state. Rather, beyond the over-simplistic binaries, the focus here is on recognising hate speech as a form of violence. While the editorial rightly criticises the overzealous police action in arresting the 22-year-old law student — she was later released on bail — it ignores the context that enabled Panoli's remarks and fails to acknowledge the target of her outburst. Panoli's words are far from being an act of reckless indiscretion; they feed into the volatile environment, increasingly marginalising, vilifying, and disproportionately targeting Muslims. The editorial, too, acknowledges that Panoli's post echoed 'some of the most hurtful anti-minority tropes in circulation'. However, more than the troubling content of Panoli's post, one should be wary of the political sentiments that consider Muslims to be demographic threats. Condemning arrests for online posts is crucial, but one must differentiate between freedom of expression and provocative speech that perpetuates targeted hatred against marginalised communities. The editorial failed to realise the essence of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015). The judgment upholds freedom of speech but doesn't legitimise hate speech. On the contrary, the SC has clearly defined the boundaries between protected free expression and punishable hate speech. In Shreya Singhal, the court established a crucial framework by distinguishing three categories of speech: Discussion, advocacy, and incitement. It held that 'mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause, howsoever unpopular, is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution', and is therefore protected. However, as the court noted, once such speech crosses the line into incitement — particularly incitement to violence, hatred, or public disorder — Article 19(2) applies, and restrictions become constitutionally valid. By drawing this line, Shreya Singhal underscores a crucial principle: The right to free speech does not encompass a right to incite harm or hatred against others. Many judicial precedents affirm this critical distinction. Notably, in three rulings in 2018 — Tehseen Poonawalla vs Union of India, Kodungallur Film Society vs Union of India, and Shakti Vahini vs Union of India, the SC went a step further, laying down guidelines to prevent and address hate speech and vigilante violence. However, these directives have largely remained on paper, with little to no meaningful implementation. The antidote to overzealous state action cannot be universal impunity. The editorial rightly points out that young Muslims have often been arrested for social media posts and labelled 'anti-national' or 'pro-Pakistan', often with little evidence of real harm. But to use that injustice to suggest that no one should be held accountable for incendiary speech is a fallacy. The discourse on free speech must be shaped by consistent legal principles, not by selective outrage and the use of legal machinery by those in power. The solution to the wicked problem of protecting free speech lies in equal and principled application of the law, not in abandoning accountability altogether. In a system that disproportionately targets minority voices while mostly excusing and sometimes even celebrating those who vilify them, the overwhelming defence from all political cadres for free expression is amusing. The double standard is made evident through the ruling party's sudden invocation of the principle of freedom of speech and expression, championing Panoli's right to free speech while silencing dissenting voices from marginalised communities — the latest, the arrest of Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, is a case in point. Defending insidious speech on the grounds of constitutional liberty risks defending the right to hate, a right not promised by the Constitution. The writer teaches law at Jamia Hamdard
