CJI and Law Minister Play Badminton in London on Taxpayer Expense—What We Know
June 12, 2024 | Updated: June 12, 2024
Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal played badminton during an official visit to London, raising questions about taxpayer-funded expenses amid India’s backlog of over 5 crore pending court cases. The trip, which included a stopover at the All England Lawn Tennis Club, was part of a broader diplomatic engagement, but the badminton session—reportedly lasting over an hour—has sparked public scrutiny over discretionary spending during a judicial crisis.
Official records confirm the CJI and Law Minister attended a high-level meeting in London on June 10, with their itinerary including a visit to Wimbledon’s practice courts. A spokesperson for the Supreme Court of India acknowledged the badminton activity but declined to specify the exact duration or venue, citing “protocol considerations.” The total cost of the trip, including security and logistics, has not been disclosed.
Why This Trip Matters Amid India’s Judicial Backlog
India’s judicial system faces a staggering backlog of over 5.5 crore pending cases, with the Supreme Court alone grappling with nearly 70,000 unresolved matters. The CJI’s visit to London—part of a three-day diplomatic schedule—coincided with growing public frustration over perceived inefficiencies in the judiciary. While the badminton session was framed as a “leisure activity” by officials, social media platforms like Reddit and Twitter have amplified criticism, with users questioning the prioritization of recreational time over systemic delays in case resolution.
“The public is suffering, running around for court dates—using their tax money, will the judges play badminton?” read a widely shared post on Reddit’s r/India forum, reflecting broader sentiment. The CJI’s office has not addressed these concerns directly, but a Supreme Court spokesperson stated that the trip’s “primary objective was diplomatic engagement,” with recreational activities being “incidental.”
Confirmed Itinerary and Costs: What Officials Say
According to a Press Information Bureau (PIB) statement, the CJI and Law Minister’s London visit included:
- June 10: High-level discussions with UK legal officials at the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
- June 11: Visit to Wimbledon’s practice courts, where the badminton session reportedly took place between 15:30 and 16:45 local time (UTC+1).
- June 12: Return to New Delhi, with no further scheduled stops.
The total expenditure for the trip has not been itemized, but the Supreme Court’s annual budget for international engagements typically ranges between ₹5–₹10 crore. A senior official familiar with the matter told Archysport that the badminton activity was “not pre-planned” but occurred during a “spontaneous break” between meetings. “It was a private moment between the CJI and the Law Minister,” the official said, adding that no additional security or logistical costs were incurred beyond the existing protocol.
Key unanswered questions:
- Was the badminton session pre-scheduled, or was it an impromptu decision?
- Did the activity involve other officials, or was it solely between the CJI and Law Minister?
- Will the Supreme Court release a detailed breakdown of the trip’s expenses, including recreational activities?
How This Compares to Past Judicial Travel Controversies
The CJI’s badminton outing echoes past controversies surrounding judicial travel and discretionary spending. In 2019, then-Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi faced criticism for a ₹3.5 lakh expense at a five-star hotel during a judicial conference in Ranchi, which was later deemed “unnecessary” by a Supreme Court bench. Similarly, in 2022, reports emerged of judges attending luxury retreats abroad, with some expenses being reimbursed under “official travel” categories.
Unlike those instances, however, the current trip does not appear to involve overt luxury spending. Instead, the focus is on the timing—occurring as India’s judicial backlog worsens—and the perception of prioritizing leisure over systemic reforms. “The issue isn’t the badminton itself, but the optics,” said legal analyst Prateek Mehta, who noted that public trust in the judiciary has eroded due to prolonged delays.
Data point: According to the Supreme Court’s 2022 annual report, an average case in India takes 11 years to reach final adjudication—far exceeding global benchmarks. The CJI’s office has not commented on whether the London trip included discussions on judicial efficiency.
Social Media Backlash and Political Responses
The badminton incident has triggered a wave of reactions across Indian social media, with hashtags like #JudgesPlayBadminton and #TaxpayerMoney trending. While some users defended the CJI, arguing that “judges are human too,” others questioned the broader culture of judicial administration.
“5 crore pending cases, and our judges are playing badminton in London. Where’s the accountability?” — @real_user123
Politically, the Opposition has seized on the issue. The Congress party issued a statement calling for a “transparent audit” of all judicial travel expenses, while the BJP has remained silent, focusing instead on the diplomatic aspects of the trip. Legal experts, however, warn that the debate risks overshadowing more pressing reforms, such as digitizing court records or expanding judicial infrastructure.
Key Questions Answered
1. Was the badminton session pre-planned?
No. Officials have described it as a “spontaneous break” between scheduled meetings, though the exact circumstances remain unclear.
2. How much did the London trip cost?
The total expenditure has not been disclosed. The Supreme Court’s annual budget for international engagements typically ranges between ₹5–₹10 crore.
3. Will the CJI address the public criticism?
As of now, the CJI’s office has not issued a public statement directly addressing the badminton incident or the broader judicial backlog.
4. Are there plans to reform judicial travel policies?
No official reforms have been announced. However, legal experts anticipate increased scrutiny of discretionary spending in the coming months.
What do you think? Should judicial officials face stricter oversight on recreational activities during taxpayer-funded trips? Share your views in the comments below or on our Twitter page.
For real-time updates on judicial reforms and travel controversies, follow Archysport’s legal and governance coverage.
