The Supreme Court on Thursday criticised a senior Maharashtra judicial officer for allegedly raising his voice and adopting an aggressive tone during proceedings before the Bombay High Court. The court said a judicial officer cannot shout at judges or blame the High Court for failing to fill sanctioned posts.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a plea filed by Dilip S Ghumare, secretary and senior legal adviser in Maharashtra’s Department of Law and Judiciary. Ghumare had challenged a September 1 order of the Bombay High Court initiating criminal contempt proceedings against him.
The Supreme Court did not stay the ongoing contempt proceedings but restrained the Bombay High Court from passing a final order for now. It issued notice on Ghumare’s plea and listed the matter for September 28.
During the hearing, the bench questioned Ghumare’s conduct and said that a judicial officer had no business telling a court that it was responsible for not filling vacant sanctioned posts. The judges described the alleged conduct as gross indiscipline and advised Ghumare to return to the High Court and offer an unconditional apology.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing Ghumare, told the Supreme Court that his client had already apologised and had also sought voluntary retirement. Singh said Ghumare was required to serve a three-month notice period and had subsequently been transferred to a Naxalite-affected area nearly 1,000 km away.
The lawyer also sought a video recording of the proceedings, pointing out that the High Court had described Ghumare’s behaviour as “bordering on shouting” rather than expressly stating that he had shouted.
The Supreme Court, however, noted that Ghumare’s affidavit appeared to suggest that the High Court itself had made an error. Singh argued that Ghumare had only pointed out that 1,100 judicial posts had been sanctioned but just 385 had been filled.
The dispute arose during the hearing of a public interest litigation filed in 2013 by RTI activist Vihar Durve. The Bombay High Court had sought clarification regarding an additional affidavit concerning the creation of 179 posts for fast-track courts.
When the additional government pleader could not provide a clear response, the High Court questioned Ghumare, who was present in court, about the affidavit and who had prepared it.
According to the High Court, Ghumare responded in an aggressive and high-pitched manner and blamed the court administration for not filling the 179 posts. The High Court described the conduct as an unwarranted and deliberate attack on its dignity and authority.
The High Court had issued him a contempt notice under Article 215 of the Constitution and Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It also observed that a later apology could not automatically erase conduct that undermined the authority of the court.
The contempt matter before the Bombay High Court is scheduled for September 11, while the Supreme Court will hear Ghumare’s challenge on September 28.
Reader Comments 0