The Centre on Wednesday reacted strongly to a controversy involving Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) Director Vivek Banzal, whose detailed two-day travel plan to Prayagraj triggered public outrage after going viral online.
Union Communications Minister Jyotiraditya Scindia said a show-cause notice has been issued to the senior official, giving him seven days to respond.
`
“I have made it very clear that this is improper and a violation of established rules and traditions. It is unacceptable to me. It is shocking,” Scindia was quoted by several media houses as saying.
21-Point Itinerary Draws Backlash
Vivek Banzal, Director (Consumer Fixed Access – CFA) at BSNL, was scheduled to visit Prayagraj on February 25–26. However, his travel order — a 21-point document — circulated widely on social media for what critics described as excessive arrangements.
According to the document, nearly 50 officials — including junior technical officers, engineers, sub-divisional engineers and divisional engineers — were assigned to assist during the visit.
The itinerary reportedly included arrangements for a bath at the Sangam and visits to religious sites such as the Hanuman Temple, Akshayavat and Patalpuri Temple. It also detailed “comfort management” items, including hair oil, combs, toothbrushes, shaving kits, slippers and undergarments.
MUST READ: ‘Will not allow anybody to defame institution’: CJI seethes over NCERT’s corruption in judiciary chapter
Eight bath kits — six for men and two for women — were arranged, and one senior official was tasked with supervising post-bath arrangements.
The trip was cancelled a day before the scheduled departure.
BSNL Responds, Says Action Taken
Following public criticism, BSNL issued a statement distancing itself from the arrangements.
“Appropriate action has been taken against the concerned. Further instructions have been issued reiterating strict adherence to extant guidelines. BSNL employees are reminded to comply fully with prescribed conduct rules and instructions in this regard,” the statement said.
The controversy has raised questions about the use of public resources and official protocol for senior government officials.
In a separate development, the Supreme Court of India refused to entertain a petition challenging provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) that permit serving or retired judicial officers to hold senior posts in the prosecution department.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, termed the plea “misconceived” and lacking any “legal foundation”.
What Section 20 of BNSS Says
The petition challenged Section 20(2)(a) and (2)(b) of the BNSS. The provisions state that: A person is eligible to be appointed Director or Deputy Director of Prosecution if they have practised as an advocate for at least 15 years or “is or has been” a Sessions Judge.
A person is eligible to be appointed Assistant Director of Prosecution if they have practised as an advocate for at least seven years or has been a First-Class Magistrate.
The petitioner argued that the provision violated the doctrine of separation of powers and Article 50 of the Constitution, which mandates separation of the judiciary from the executive.
However, the bench clarified: “The words ‘is or has been’ are to be read as an eligibility condition and not to mean that a serving sessions judge is to hold the position. The only requirement of law is that he should not be the prosecutor and judge at the same time.”
Dismissing the challenge, the court observed: “The misconceived challenge to Section 20(2)(a) that it violates fundamental rights has no legal foundation and is dismissed.”
