The Bombay Excessive Courtroom on Tuesday (September 1) issued a contempt discover to Dilip S. Ghumare, Secretary and Senior Authorized Advisor, Division of Legislation and Judiciary, Maharashtra, after observing that he launched into an aggressive, high-pitched tone “bordering to shouting” and blamed the Excessive Courtroom administration throughout courtroom proceedings.
A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata was listening to an interim utility in a PIL regarding judicial appointments in Maharashtra. Ghumare, who’s a senior Judicial Officer and was previously Principal Secretary and R.L.A. to the Legislation and Judiciary Division, was current in Courtroom.
Throughout the listening to, the bench took observe of an affidavit filed by Ghumare, whereby sure averments have been made with respect to creation of 179 new Quick Monitor Courts. Nonetheless, when the bench requested Ghumare, who was current within the courtroom in regards to the averments made within the affidavit, he was hesitant to reply.
“Observing his hesitation, Justice Khata put to him a simple query: who had drafted the Affidavit, and whether or not it contained the mandatory averments in query. Slightly than responding to our question, the Deponent launched into an aggressive, high-pitched tone (bordering to shouting) inter alia blaming the Excessive Courtroom administration, aside from different sentences acknowledged that ‘the Excessive Courtroom Administration was liable for not filling up the 179 posts’ earlier than a packed Courtroom. We’re of the view that, Ghumare’s unwarranted outburst and aggressive manner, intentionally displayed in open Courtroom in full public view whereas making an attempt to justify the stand in his Affidavits, not solely scandalised the Courtroom however undermined and tried to decrease its authority, constituting contempt ex facie, as contemplated below Article 215 of the Structure of India learn with Part 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,” the judges recorded.
The bench famous that Ghumare’s intemperate outburst constituted a deliberate and unwarranted assault upon the “dignity and authority” of the Excessive Courtroom.
The bench additionally refused to simply accept his apology, he tendered via Advocate Common Dr Milind Sathe, who was known as to the courtroom by the judges within the second session of the listening to.
“Such conduct is manifestly unbecoming of any judicial officer and easily outrageous, falling far beneath the usual we’d anticipate. It has lengthy been the settled apply of this Courtroom that each one litigants, whether or not in civil or legal issues, are anticipated to take care of decorum and respect the sanctity of those proceedings. This expectation will not be merely heightened, however turns into crucial, when the individual in query is himself a judicial officer. A Judicial Officer can’t exhibit such a behaviour in open courtroom and thereafter anticipate a pardon via an apology in any method or kind later. To allow this may convey to the general public at massive a deeply troubling message: that one can commit an in any other case inexcusable act with impunity in open Courtroom after which sheepishly, in a theatrical method, not which means a phrase of it, supply an apology, both via a Senior Counsel or Advocate Common to absolve himself of an act which ex facie is contemptuous,” the bench remarked.
The judges clearly opined that such a conduct by the officer in open Courtroom, witnessed by all current, was “wholly unpardonable” and can’t be countenanced.
“Ghumare was previously a Principal Secretary and at the moment is a Secretary on the Division of Legislation and Judiciary can’t definitely neglect that he’s a Judicial Officer and can’t begin concerning the Courtroom as totally insignificant, irrelevant or inconsequential in any method nor can or not it’s flippantly trammeled upon. The publish of a Principal Secretary or Secretary on the Division of Legislation and Judiciary is a vital place within the interface between the Judiciary and the Legislature. Whatever the substance of the dispute, it doesn’t confer on him the privilege to deal with this Courtroom with utter disrespect. We subsequently difficulty discover to Ghumare, Secretary and Senior Authorized Advisor, Division of Legislation and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai, as to why contempt proceedings shouldn’t be initiated in opposition to him for committing the aforesaid act,” the bench ordered.
The bench has posted the matter for additional listening to on September 11.
Look:
Advocates Narayan Bubna and AA Achhra appeared for PIL Petitioner.
Advocate Common Dr. Milind Sathe together with Chief Authorities Pleader Neha Bhide, Extra Authorities Pleader Priyabhushan Kakade and Assistant Authorities Pleader VR Raje represented the State.
Case Title: Vihar Shivajirao Durve vs State of Maharashtra (Interim Utility 2678 of 2025)
Quotation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 423
